|
|||
The initial U.S. air strategy against Afghanistan is not working. We appear to be escalating toward a sustained air campaign to bomb that country for as long as it takes to topple the Taliban regime. Americans who remember the air war over Kosovo may think that a sustained air attack is a smart strategy. This is a misreading of both the history of air power and the lesson of Kosovo. After only 12 days, isn't it just a tad bit premature to say that the strategy has failed? But more to the point, how does Pape know that the strategy is what he says it is? I don't think that the strategy here was to bomb them until they surrender. The strategy in a war has to be based on the local situation. The Taliban don't rule a unified organization; it isn't a nation. That's not what life is like in Afghanistan. What you have there is a scad of small warlords each of whom control anything from 50 to a thousand men. They ally with others when their interests are congruent, but they also readily change sides. The areas "controlled" by the Taliban are actually mostly controlled by these warlords, who have allied with the Taliban because they seemed to be the most powerful party. But if confidence in the Taliban can be reduced, many of these groups may decide to switch their loyalties; that is the goal of this campaign. The only force the Taliban really has which it directly controls and can rely on is a core of 5-10 thousand foreign soldiers most of whom are loyal to bin Laden rather than to the Taliban, but there are increasing reports of friction between these guys and the native Afghans. He assumes in this that the goal was to kill the Taliban leadership directly. That was never the goal (though we would certainly do it if we thought we could pull it off). The purpose of this was first, to gain air supremacy (always the first goal of the US for the last sixty years) which has been done. Second, to start destroying military assets belonging to the Taliban, which is in progress. Third, to make it seem to everyone in Afghanistan as if the Taliban are the losing side, because when that happens all these independent warlords will begin changing sides and suddenly the Taliban won't have any army anymore. It remains to be seen whether this will succeed, but it is much too soon to declare it a failure. (discussion in progress) Update 20011019: -- Russian military experts said Friday that America's goals in the war with Afghanistan are muddy and the lack of a clear strategy is causing disquiet in Moscow, which had its own bitter experience during a 10-year occupation that ended in defeat. While the Russians have been cooperating with us on this, I don't believe that we trust them enough yet to let them in on our plans, so it's difficult to see how they could know how muddy our strategy is. |
|||
