Overwhelming-force needed: Afghanistan!
Posted: February 18, 2009 Filed under: Afghanistan, Afghanistan [US] overwhlming force, No overseas troop level reduction, US troops in the broader Middle East, With Afghanistan | Tags: Overseas troop level to remain, Overwhelming force Afghanistan Leave a comment »Overwhelming-force needed: Afghanistan!
Experiences of others, such as Russia, notwithstanding, Afghanistan unique character requires an overwhelming-force in order to accomplish the goal of neutralizing the Taliban, and establishing a democracy that is not encumbered by religion, or guided by Shariya (Islamic law,) as it now is. In spite of Americans reluctance about having fighting United States troops overseas, especially in harm’s way, a success in Afghanistan would bring about troop levels not a-similar to those reached in Iraq.
President Obama shows a significant naivete when he suggests that diplomacy could work with the Taliban. In spite of the President’s exposure to Islam, and his Islamic birth, President Obama demonstrates ignorance of even the minimal requirements dictated by the Koran. Koranic law would not even allow a Taliban to communicate with the heathen Americans, especially that they are represented by a woman.
For the United States to accomplish minimal goals in Afghanistan the American public must expect troop levels in that country to reach the same, or near the same level that was reached in Iraq.
Afghanistan: A new Iraq? The case for overwhelming force!
Posted: December 23, 2008 Filed under: Afghanistan [US] overwhlming force, US troops in the broader Middle East, With Afghanistan | Tags: 000 troops in Middle East, Long-term: Over 100, Were McCain's 100 year right? 1 Comment »
Afghanistan: The case for overwhelming force!
Before it is all said and done, it is likely that over 100,000 United States troops will participate in the “securing of democracy” in Afghanistan. Including “allied” forces the number of troops will likely be over half of those that were deployed in Iraq!
President-elect, Barak Obama was primarily “hired” by the American public to end the war in Iraq and to bring US troops home, to the United States. The President-elect, even before taking office already “modified” his job description to allow for at least 30,000 American troops deployment in Afghanistan, and this is only a beginning…
Short of President loch sojourn into Kosovo, there are examples in human warfare when the doctrine of overwhelming force, did not determine the outcome. In Kosovo, where unlike most war situation, the enemy was well defined, and “locals” did not side with the it, targeted air attack was enough to bring about a satisfactory outcome.
When the Israeli in their naiveté, attempted to follow the Kosovo model, they suffered their first defeat to Arab forces in sixty years of fighting. Hezbollah, and the Lebanese people made it clear, as did the Iraqi in the most recent American invasion, that it is nearly impossible to win a country through the use of minimal force.
In Iraq, Secretary Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfovitz attempted to use business models to plan the war. Even in business, where the basic model of using what essentially is zero inventory, and for all practical purposes only build to ship, the model without modification proved flawed; it clearly fails in a war situation when new and unpredictable inputs continue to emerge.
The Afghanistan situation is extremely complicated. The Russians found this out the hard way; the United States must not allow itself to face a similar situation.
To avoid public rejection and resentment, President-elect Obama must, without delay, prepare The American public for an expensive and protracted engagement in Afghanistan.
Obama appears committed to get the world of Osama bin-Ladin, and is on record as willing to go as far as to violet sovereignty of anyone in his way of protecting the United States from its enemies. Such a position, when dealing with the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation must be explained in may be its possibly worse case scenario.
United States presence in the broader Middle East may change. There may be fewer troops in Iraq, but there will likely be many more troops in Afghanistan. There may have to be more United States ships in the Arabian Peninsula as a buffer to Ahmadinejad, and a larger presence with more joint exercises with Israel of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.
It would behoove the incoming United States Administration to prepare the American public for an ongoing war situation with hundred of thousands of troops remaining in the Broader Middle East than the time frame for a total troop withdrawal that the President-elect spoke about during his campaign.
