[Common Tator]

This story is typical media analysis done by people whose total military expertise came from not paying attention in history class.

This war has been from day one a war based on the military principle of siege. Sit down for a moment and pretend you are at a war planning meeting at the pentagon.

  They list the options  for war
     1. Nuke Em
     2. Pure air war (bombing strafing)
     3. Conventional war (take and hold ground until all of
        Afghanistan is held
     4. Guerrilla war 
     5. Seige 

Nukes were put on the back burner, unless it is the only viable option. We do not want to give others the option to use nukes because we used them. We will only use them if we have to use them.

Pure air war of bombing has never worked. The air war contributed to Millosevic surrender but the Taliban is not Millosevic. Bombing did not do it with Sadam.

Conventional war would likely cost us 20,000 to 50,000 dead. We would have to reinstate the draft. Our nation might do a Nam on us if drafties started dying in large numbers.

Guerrilla war does not have much cost, but it is a very long time to victory if ever. The only reason North Vietnam won was our people made us give up. The Taliban is not likely to give up.

That leaves Seige. In a seige you prevent the other side from getting food and ammunition. You do not attack, You do not lose forces, you just starve him out.

That is what the plan has been from day one. It was modified to use Guerrilla tactics and bombing to speed up the starvation. We are blowing up his ammo dumps and food stores. We are letting no food get in to the taliban. We are dumping token amounts of food on the edges of Afghanistan.

We have twice blown up red cross food supplies in Afghanistan. If there are more we will blow those up too.

Our very first act was to seal off the west,north, east and south of Afghanistan from the air and the ground. They can't grow food, and the they can't make ammunition and there is no way to import it.

When they have starved for 20 days, they will have little energy to fight. When they have not eaten for 40 days they will not be able to fight. Some may not have the strength to surrender.

In war, Goverments try to win. In war, the media tries to get viewers and readers.

[cons_Mark]

Interesting comments about a siege. I sense that this may be a very viable strategy, along with taking some shots during the winter time. Are you comfortable that the supply pipeline has been sufficiently cut off? I suspect that a little bit is getting through from Pakistan, but it may not change the tide. Plus those camps and caves close to the Pakistan border might have a chance at getting some resupplies.

[Lazamataz]

Good analysis. But you left out two of my favorite options: Massive carpet-biowarfare, and massive carpet-VX-nerve-gassing.

[ContemptofCourt]

Yeah, and it has worked so well in Iraq.....

[Gadsden1st]

I appreciate your view on this and it seem to be on target. I have no problem with waiting them out. I want to nuke em, but that is an emotional response which I may shout out from time to time. Starvation is good. Roasting is nice. Death by a thousand cuts works. Blind, deaf, and dumb with constant pain for life is an option. I'm open to most means. I understand more of us will suffer, die, in this war but agree it should be kept to minimum. The one thing I have no regard for is the opinion of anyone other than our true alies.

[neutrino]

What a great analysis! Thank you!

[carton253]

Common Tator...

I can't thank you enough for your postings. I always read what you write with interest. You are right. Government is trying to win the war, the media is trying to get ratings. Those two are at cross purposes.

[Jhensy]

At the risk of being a keyboard commando: Have I missed something or are we not going in? With infantry, tanks, artillery, etc. ? I still assume we're doing the necessary pre-invasion bombing, with a massive operation to follow. Or not? Is it just going to be hit-and-run commando raids, which sounds more like a Vietnam stalemate than a real bashing? I know our men are chomping at the bit for some revenge, are they gonna get it?

[Don Myers]

We might try to starve them out. I wonder how far we will get when the rest of the world begins screaming about the innocent civilians who are dying. Just think of all of the women and children who are starving. Yeah, right. Tell me more about siege tactics.

[74dodgedart]

The Soviets waited 10 years before they gave up, how long do you think we'll have to wait ?

Do you think the American people have the patience for a protracted siege ?

How about when terrorists attack the US again, is GW going to stand up in front of everyone and say "just give us another year or two, we'll get them".

[PETAMember]

You pointed out that "This story is typical media analysis done by people whose total military expertise came from not paying attention in history class."

So true. They must have ignored even recent history. The Russians lost around 300 aircraft a year pre-Stinger. After the rebels got Stingers, the toll went up to 500-1000. With that in mind, I think our folks are doing a GREAT job. As far as the bombing taking a while, I can think of a couple of very good reasons for the current pace of the bombing.

Doesn't it seem like there is starting to be "mission-expectation-creep" on the part of the media? We aren't trying to "take Kabul by winter", resupply the NA from Bagram airport, etc.. As I recall, the reason for our effort is to put the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan out of business, then move on to other chores in other countries.

[untenured]

When they have starved for 20 days, they will have little energy to fight. When they have not eaten for 40 days they will not be able to fight. Some may not have the strength to surrender.

I know you have been offering this siege analysis without wavering almost since the day the war started. But its success hinges on food really being scarce for soldiers, doesn't it? If 9/11 was planned for years the hard core of the Afghan-based jihadists might have stored quite a bit of food. In addition, some of these borders are extremely porous.

[The Truth Will Make You Free]

Our very first act was to seal off the west,north, east and south of Afghanistan from the air and the ground.

If the country is sealed in every direction, how is the opium getting out? And if opium can get out, why can't other things get in?

[San Jacinto]

It seems to me that we cannot starve the Taliban without starving the country. We can't starve the country because of the political risk. Our strategy seems to have been to weaken the Taliban through air strikes and then let Afghan dissidents take over through a coalition government we helped put together. This outcome now looks improbable due to the dissidents' inability to come together. The Northern Alliance has no popular support outside of the Uzbeks and Tajiks in the north. Plus, they obviously can't fight their way out of a paper sack.

It looks to me like we are going to have to turn the air war way, way up and start killing lots of Taliban personnel. We have to bring them down within the next 2 or 3 weeks.

We are going to have to take and hold some ground if we are going to feed the people and not the Taliban. Even then, how do you get food to 20 million people?

I promise you that if they start starving in droves over there, we will become the bad guy in every country in the world, not just among the Arabs. The siege theory will not work.

[alnick]

Thank you for that. I'm so upset with the media and the Americans who are already sounding like they're ready to give up! They're critiquing the performance of the administration when they don't even have access to the classified information.

We were told that this would be a long war. I don't want for us to be at war, but we have no choice. Our opponents are tough and elusive, but they will not win, no thanks to all the defeatists in our midst.