Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Who's Winning Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: To David Blue and bsl
[email protected]    12/26/2001 8:08:51 PM
Guys, I really do appreciate your critique of my comments. Whether you agree or disagree with my remarks that is fine with me, it is welcomed. I admit that I am having a tough time being objective about such a passionate issue. I welcome any comments that may possibly open a view of "the bigger picture". All in all, I do think the momentum is on our side. My only fear is that we become so concerned about fighting the "good" fight that our hands are tied to repay such evil with enough force to prevail. I see the media hype about Afghan casualties and it sickens me. What about our men? Our allies too. We known some will die in non-combantant situations or even be killed by freindly fire or those procuring still hostile "hotspots". That sadly is war. But are they any less nobler? Having said that, I personally feel that our primary objective should be to uproot these terrorist cells. Terrorist do not play fair and therefore neither should we. We live by our own might and honor but we should maintain the resolve to play dirty if need be. Should we really let other rogue factions think we are above that? This is after all something that other nations are witnessing. Under these circumstance I don't think that we should give to much creedance as to what these middle-eastern nations think. Let them fear us. Fear is a good thing. Just as a man would not dare to reason with the cobra who crosses his path, he avoids it out of respect for it's deadly striking power. I don't believe we should "intellectualize" these arguements. Logic is a weakness at times, and I mean logic not strategy. Strategy involves all the motives that pervade war, to the more complex to the most primal with the consideration of the enemy's logic included. That being said, the enemy is pressed to wrap their logic around fear. Fear is the motivating factor that presses all human beings. Consider yours in your daily existence. Fear of poverty, shame, injury, failure,etc..ad nauseum. I still think that an image of a Bin Laden corspe fell by US bullets would indeed send a very clear and powerful message. Just for clarification,I am not opposed to goodwill amongst nations, nor nation builing. We did that with Germany and Japan. The stance we took with them only supports my point, in my mind anyway. Let nations see our compassinate side too. All that aside, my comments about US casualties and our utilization of the NA to accomplish a deed that I feel our forces should have been committed to doing... Remember when the NA was positioned outside the front lines of Kabul before we started taking out the hardened targets, the media and the free world were pressuring the US for action daily. I sometimes wonder if that had and effect. Several wanted the NA to advance but we were told that a Afghan coalition had to be constructed. At that point we had an oppurtunity to insert more forces. We even did a practice run in Afghanistan. Before that day we were being prepared for the possibility of sustaining a high amount of casualties. However we have already sustained over 3,000 casualties in a little place called NYC. I disagree about us needing Pakistan to stage this assualt. We are more than capable of inserting and extracting enough man power and air cover with or without Pakistan. Retired and active Generals have even commented as much. I think that the main concern with Pakistan was that we did not want to give them encouragement to ally with the Taliban and Al-Qeada. However,we did see the pro-Taliban Pakistani element migrate across the border to shore up the Taliban position anyway. I say good. When all the cockroaches come out of the dark and ban together that simply makes for a better target. I am not trying to be an authority on anything here. This is just how I see it and God knows I could be wrong. Anyhow, before I get of on another tangent, I wish peace and love to my fellow American brothers and sisters. God bless our fighting men and women. God bless America and the sacrifices for the liberty of all mankind. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
tomsawyer100    RE:To David Blue and bsl   12/27/2001 8:16:23 AM
David, you sure have your facts right.We do have to fight.We cannot say that we shall not cos one day we have to and then the casualties will be even greater.These vermin should have been dealt with a long time back.else sept 11 would not have happened.you know who I think is going to be the next.These same middle east states that we have to appease now.And I fail to understand why we have to appease them at all.they have an appalling record of human rights and now when action against terrorists is being taken they are angry cos the terrorists are muslims.does'nt that translate into "all muslims are terrorists".
 
Quote    Reply

pfd    RE:To David Blue and bsl   12/27/2001 11:55:28 AM
Irrespective of how clever our air delivered weapons are, they still seem to hurt the undecided and undeclared. Their relatives and loved ones then (may) declare themselves. This should be a cause for sorrow and reflection. Raytheon may not feel this way but as citizens we should not be so quick to cheer at the success of our appliances. They work as advertised but are we good consumers?
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:To David Blue and bsl   12/27/2001 5:30:11 PM
dvs, My principal disagreement with you is over the practicability of sustaining major American forces in Afghanistan. If someone in uniform is claiming that it would have been no big deal, then I'd like to hear details about how he proposed to 1)move a field army into Afghanistan, 2)keep it supplied, and 3)safeguard his lines of communications. The most important thing to keep in mind is the geography. Afghanistan has no seacoast. It is entirely surrounded by other countries. That means that in order to get there, we have to cross other countries. This is a fact; not a matter of opinion. The countries bordering Afghanistan are Pakistan, Iran, China, and several of the old central Asian "stans" formerly part of the USSR. I assume we agree that we weren't marching in through China. I also assume we agree that we weren't going in through Iran. So, what's left? Pakistan or through Central Asia. Central Asia means not only securing the agreement of at least one of those little countries. It ALSO means getting RUSSIA to agree since the "stans" are, in turn, surrounded by Russia. So, our choices, in the real world, were getting either Russia or Pakistan to agree to allow us to cross their borders. The ONLY alternative to such agreement would have been an invasion. See? Next, given the assent of a neighboring country, how were we to support our deployment? One of the two most important lessons drummed into me about how to analyse military problems (the other one was never begin without getting a map, first) was to recognize that amateurs talk about strategy while professionals talk about logistics. An old correspondent, a retired colonel of armored cavalry who did some staff work planning for NATO, in Europe, used to like to tweak me by pointing out how many hundreds of thousands of tons an armored division represented. How many tens of thousands of gallons of fuel, per day, how much food, etc.. Just how do you supply a field army in Afghanistan? Let's assume it wouldn't have been a heavy force. More a medium force. A few tanks, a bunch of IFCs and CFVs, and a bunch of attack and transport helicopters. This was the minimum. We would not have simply thrown in airborne/air assault troops with no ground transport or any armor, at all. You CAN NOT support several divisions like this from the air, exclusively. We don't have enough transport planes to do so. We'd have a bad enough problem simply MOVING such a force by air. It wouldn't be fast and it wouldn't be pretty, and we'd tie up the entire air transport force, PLUS some civilian planes leased for the purpose. Move and supply by land? We're back to needing either the cooperation of a neighbor or invading and conquering that neighbor. And, frankly, there were problems moving heavy cargo by rail and road even WITH the cooperation of a neighbor. Finally, having deployed a field army in Afghanistan, and cobbled together the logistical train to support it, we'd be faced with PROTECTING those lines of communications. Long convoys of trucks, moving constantly across the borders into and across Afghanistan. Know where most of the Soviet casualties in their Afghan war came from? It wasn't the attacks they made, or in defending their fighting forces against Afghan attacks. It was in their supply convoys as well as among soldiers on leave in towns or cities, in small groups. Attacking supply trains is an Afghan specialty. It's one thing they're GOOD at. And, those convoys would not have been an invitation for only the Afghans to attack. Moving through Pakistan, they would have been an open invitation for Pakistani opponents of our war AND of the current Pakistani government to attack. And, we KNOW that Al Qaeda AND the Taliban were active in parts of Pakistan; especially those parts near the Afghan border. So, to sum up, a conventional war would have been MUCH more difficult for us to have conducted in these, specific circumstances because of the idiosyncracies of the region. It would have taken much longer to start - because of the necessary buildup - would have required MORE cooperation from other countries because of the need to cross their territory - unless we were willing to fight them for the right to fight in Afghanistan - and it would have exposed our forces to unnecessary dangers in their rear areas. The approach we chose was clever, appropriate, and efficient. In this, specific case, it was the best available choice. I DON'T say this would be true in almost any other country. Circumstances were nearly unique with regard to Afghanistan. Almost every other country yet mentioned as a possible site of future operations has a seacoast, for instance. (Except Sudan). So, we could insert forces without crossing anyone else's borders. Some of these other countries don't present nearly the opportunity to gain local military support that we had in Afghanistan. (I have questions
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:To David Blue and bsl   12/27/2001 5:32:51 PM
"Irrespective of how clever our air delivered weapons are, they still seem to hurt the undecided and undeclared." There is no such thing as a war in which no weapon ever hits the wrong target. No such thing as a war in which people are not killed by mistake. Nevertheless, we just came closer to such ideals than any other country ever did in any war in history which I've ever heard about.
 
Quote    Reply

[email protected]    RE:To David Blue and bsl   12/27/2001 8:27:28 PM
Well you certainly make some good points and you are historically correct about the Soviet/Afgahistan conflict in most details. However, you are assuming that from my comment about not needing the support of other nations that I meant we should disregard the help of the NA alliance. I am not saying that at all. One thing that you do not take in to account about your historical rememberance of the Russian-Afghan conflict is that the majority of the nation of Afghanistan supported the conflict against the Soviets invasion. Presently, the US did use to its advantage the force of the NA in a very benefical outcome. However, my original argument was that we merely should have more presence on the ground. This could have been achieved after the fall of Kabul. It could have even been more UN forces.The point dealt with the escape of the Taliban and Al-Qeada forces once defeated. Something the NA has great trouble doing. Normally one does not have to re-state a point but this message board does not group the thread together like most boards so it is easy for one's orginal point to be lost in a conversation. As for your arguements about insertion of our forces... An enemies army cannot be at two place at once. Example, the Taliban were not numerous enough to defend Kabul, Herat, Maziri-Sharif and Kandahar against the NA and US forces and US air supremecy. I think the advantages of exploiting that weakness are painfully obvious so I won't into to much detail unless needed. Secondly, are you saying that the Northern Alliance was more capable of fighting the ground war with its 20 year old Soviet tanks and slopply trained army? If I could only count the number of times I have seen live video of NA force firing mortars without securing the base plate.... or watch as they fire their weapons from around corners without sighting their targets. All we needed was airspace from Pakistan, we got that right off the bat. It may have taken longer to initialize a larger deployent but it could have been done and supply lines could have been protected just fine. Let me ask you, how much protection did the NA alliance have? Do you think any less then our own boys would have had? Let not forget the role of the US in the Soiet Afghan conflict. We did supply the resistance with weapons, amongst them Stinger missles. Let us assume a scenario, what if the NA had not been there, or that Pakistan and Uzebkistan gave us no airspace or clearance. What would you do? Fall back on the arguement that we can't insert enough manpower to get the job done? I doubt it. I would be interested in knowing none the less.
 
Quote    Reply

[email protected]    RE:To David Blue and bsl   9/12/2002 2:50:23 PM
we have the David Blue yahoo group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DavidBlue1
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:To David Blue and bsl   9/12/2002 6:36:12 PM
"We are more than capable of inserting and extracting enough man power and air cover with or without Pakistan." How? Where? Look at a map, draw lines representing your routes of ingress and egress, then tell me how you route your forces. You'r flying over SOME other country. If not Pakistan, then which one? Iran? I repeat that we do not have the necessary air transport to support anything much more than the kind of campaign we ran by air, alone. If you disagree, then it's time for you to match figures for the tonnage of the forces you propose to move with the tonnage of transport available. We can support a few thousand infantry by air. We can't support many tens of thousands of troops, plus armor, plus artillery, food, etc. purely by air. We do not have the planes. No country does. That's why our military infrastructure is based on moving most of the tonnage we'd need to fight by sea and/or by rail. Moving men is easy. They don't bulk much and they don't weigh much. Supplies are HEAVY. The largest plane we have can carry ONE tank at a time. Moving ammunition, fuel, etc. is a tremendous job. Supporting ONE armored or mechanized division involves moving literally hundreds of thousands of tons of equipment, PLUS supplies to sustain that division from day to day in the field. And, all this assumes that no neighbor objects to what we were doing. Had Pakistan objected to use moving across their territory, then it would have been WAR. Do you know how many people live in Pakistan? Do you know how large their military is? Are you aware that they now have working atomic weapons?
 
Quote    Reply

bsl    RE:to bsl   3/31/2003 11:47:19 PM
Oh, how? Have any real criticism, or just spouting off? There's my last note, down a few spaces on the message cue. Feel free to point out errors.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics