Ok, these are MY views and they may be unpopular but I don't care. Btw, please don't turn this into a Bush administration debate.
America has recently started a massive buildup of military equipment near the Pakistan-Afghanistan borders and the Middle East.
Bush says that it's a crusade against terrorism. Someone had better point out history to him because winning it is going to be pretty damn hard. Ditto if he wants to start a war with Afghanistan.
Terrorists have no clear territory or common ground. Usually we don't know of their plans or activities until it's too late. America has spent a lot of money on satellites and UAVs. But what is needed against terrorists is on-the ground intelligence. Fooling satellites isn't as hard as you think.
Cruise missiles against the training camps? Yes, there is little warning with cruise missiles before their impact, but we don't really know if they are actual training camps, or decoys. These people are not stupid. Far from it. They probably have many underground contacts and safehouses set up years in advance.
That's how they can survive so long without being carbombed by Mossad or being assassinated by another intelligence agency. hell, we don't even know if it's Bin Laden responsible. There are worse terrorists than him out there.
All this military force in my opinion is out to scare the other nearby countries into co-operating. It's working. Besides, no army on earth could defeat the USA in a CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT.
But a war against terrorism is not. Think of it as like guerilla warfare. it's very difficult to defend against these kind of people. If you can't stop people from committing suicide, then you can't stop dedicated fanatics with nothing to lose.
Vietnam. The soviets and Afghanistan. America would be making a huge mistake in invading Afghanistan. guerilla warfare would wreck havoc on the American troops, even with all their technology, their Paveway 24 and 27 LGBs, their air support. Mobility is the key in guerilla warfare. They don't have to hold terrain. But normal armies do. They are wide open to attacks of this kind.
Besides, many of the normal Afghans might be drawn up into a war, even though many of them do not support the Taliban.
There has been talk of supporting the rebels fighting against the Taliban. That is the better way to go. These people are experienced in the type of warfare suited to the terrain. But the Taliban fighters are just as good as well. Also, with regular contacts over a long period of time, special operations raids and guided weapons would also be the way to go.
The airpower might take out "some" key terrorist targets, but i doubt it. without proper intelligence it would most likely create larger collateral damage and just stir up more Afghans against America. The key word is intelligence. And America doesn't have that much at all, if any.
America has recently started a massive buildup of military equipment near the Pakistan-Afghanistan borders and the Middle East.
Bush says that it's a crusade against terrorism. Someone had better point out history to him because winning it is going to be pretty damn hard. Ditto if he wants to start a war with Afghanistan.
Terrorists have no clear territory or common ground. Usually we don't know of their plans or activities until it's too late. America has spent a lot of money on satellites and UAVs. But what is needed against terrorists is on-the ground intelligence. Fooling satellites isn't as hard as you think.
Cruise missiles against the training camps? Yes, there is little warning with cruise missiles before their impact, but we don't really know if they are actual training camps, or decoys. These people are not stupid. Far from it. They probably have many underground contacts and safehouses set up years in advance.
That's how they can survive so long without being carbombed by Mossad or being assassinated by another intelligence agency. hell, we don't even know if it's Bin Laden responsible. There are worse terrorists than him out there.
All this military force in my opinion is out to scare the other nearby countries into co-operating. It's working. Besides, no army on earth could defeat the USA in a CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT.
But a war against terrorism is not. Think of it as like guerilla warfare. it's very difficult to defend against these kind of people. If you can't stop people from committing suicide, then you can't stop dedicated fanatics with nothing to lose.
Vietnam. The soviets and Afghanistan. America would be making a huge mistake in invading Afghanistan. guerilla warfare would wreck havoc on the American troops, even with all their technology, their Paveway 24 and 27 LGBs, their air support. Mobility is the key in guerilla warfare. They don't have to hold terrain. But normal armies do. They are wide open to attacks of this kind.
Besides, many of the normal Afghans might be drawn up into a war, even though many of them do not support the Taliban.
There has been talk of supporting the rebels fighting against the Taliban. That is the better way to go. These people are experienced in the type of warfare suited to the terrain. But the Taliban fighters are just as good as well. Also, with regular contacts over a long period of time, special operations raids and guided weapons would also be the way to go.
The airpower might take out "some" key terrorist targets, but i doubt it. without proper intelligence it would most likely create larger collateral damage and just stir up more Afghans against America. The key word is intelligence. And America doesn't have that much at all, if any.
