Posted on 09/14/2001 9:36:44 PM PDT by oxi-nato
American strategists face a dilemma as they contemplate a missile strike against Afghanistan: what, exactly, to destroy when so much has already been destroyed. Between 1992 and 1996, as civil war raged, rival Mujaheddin factions shelled Kabul relentlessly. Innumerable rockets fell from the high brown mountains that encircle the city killing some 50,000 people. Most buildings of importance were pulverised and much of the city is still a ruin.
Nevertheless, US military planners will be working to identify key buildings and military installations used by the Taliban's extremist regime. The Taliban now appear to be as much a target as Osama bin Laden, the man they refuse to give up. Some important Taliban buildings are set a little distance away from the civilian population. The foreign ministry, which looks rather like a Swiss town hall, is surrounded by pine trees and stands in its own pleasant gardens.
Kabul's former royal palace nearby also offers a discrete target. Senior Taliban officials hold cabinet meetings here every Wednesday afternoon. But many of the Taliban's major ministries are in the heart of Kabul itself. The modern culture ministry adjoins a busy bazaar. The interior ministry - damaged by an unexplained bomb last Saturday - is in the middle of a commercial district. And the modern education ministry is next to a row of shops, surrounded by pedestrians, cyclists and yellow Toyota taxis.
Inevitably any missile strikes here would run the risk of heavy civilian casualties. Kabul airport, to the north-east of the city, is a more uncomplicated strategic target. Soon after the attacks in New York and Washington, Afghanistan's anti-Taliban opposition blasted the airport with a helicopter gunship. Further strikes would damage an airport building already riddled with bullet holes. The carcasses of wrecked planes already litter the side of the shrapnel-scarred runway. Not, though, that the Taliban have much of an airforce: they are estimated to have only three MiG jets, left by the retreating Soviet army.
The most important target for any retaliatory attack is of course Bin Laden, the prime suspect. He has lived under Taliban protection inside Afghanistan since 1996. But the problem is finding him, as the Americans discovered when they bombed his training camps in Khost, south-east Afghanistan, in August 1998, following the devastating embassy bombings in east Africa. Bin Laden had left the camp half an hour earlier. He moves secretly between bases deep inside Afghanistan. They include a large Arab camp next to the airport north of Kandahar, a southern desert city; a smaller base in the remote Oruzgan mountains; and another camp near the town of Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan, cut into a rockface. The camp is said to boast a large Islamic library, state-of-the-art communications equipment and three uncomfortable beds.
All can expect to be the targets of US retaliation. So too can the house in central Kandahar belonging to Mullah Mohammad Omar, the Taliban's reclusive spiritual leader. Mullah Omar's previous house was badly damaged by a mysterious bomb left in a truck, which killed at least 10 people. He then moved to a more spacious property, with high white walls, allegedly paid for by Bin Laden, his close friend with whom he sometimes goes fishing. Bin Laden is also believed to have a property in Kandahar fortified with anti-aircraft guns. His four wives and many children are said to live here.
Unconfirmed reports suggest that Mullah Omar has temporarily moved out. The difficulty America faces is that the Taliban leadership knows full well what is coming. "Last time they only attempted to strike the camp. This time they want to eliminate the whole system and government," Abdul Hai Mutmaen, the Taliban's spokesman, said yesterday. The irony is that there is not much left in Afghanistan that has not already been blown up.
We won't be disuaded.
If it moves, breathes, or walks upright, it is a target.
Me? I recommend both... why should we have to make a difficult choice like that???
If they run to Iran, kill them there.
If they run to Africa, kill them there.
If they run to China, kill them there.
If they run to Ohio, kill them there.
As Stonewall Jackson said concerning the Yankees: "Kill 'em. Kill 'em all."
At least they have warning, which is more than they gave us.
A sneak attack leaving over 5,000 dead and 11 of our congresscritters either voted no or didn't bother to vote.
What kind of sick animals do we have running around in the US House?
Second; The Taliban now appear to be as much a target as Osama bin Laden, the man they refuse to give up
Thats the new US policy! Its a good one.
The vermin who attacked the WTC paid no attention to the choice of men, women, or children. They killed them all.
If we must do likewise to ensure we are safe from future attacks, then that is our job to perform - for our generation and generations yet to come. It is our obligation, our duty to ourselves and our posterity to make sure our country is safe from vermin like bin Laden, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the others who would murder our innocent women and children.
Vermin like bin Laden, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the others have made it clear that they will never stop trying to kill our innocent women and children. They have made it clear that only death will terminate their activities. So we will kill them. If these vermin use innocents as human shields to protect themselves from our attacks, we can only pray to God for these innocent victims of bin Laden et al and then proceed to eliminate the scum that created the situation in which innocents must die.
We have no other choice if we are to provide a secure future for our children and theirs.
Vermin like bin Laden, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the others have made the rules, now they must suffer the terrible consequences for their choices.
What I can't imagine is attempting to control the ground in Afghanistan. If we send in the tanks we can control the desert where nobody lives, but there is no way we can control the mountains. Do we have the troops? No. Do we have the tanks and artillery? Yes, but in the mountains they are nearly as useless as B52s and much more vulnerable to counterattack
Veterans of Korea might have something to say here, or veterans of the failed Russian invasion of Afghanistan, or veterans of Russian campaigns against Chechnya.
Basically we are much less able to mount an invasion of Afghanistan than was the British Army in 1860 or whenever it was. The got creamed also.
To not destroy evil because evil uses innocents to shield themselves is to ensure that even more innocents die in the future. The most moral, responsible action is to eliminate evil NOW, before it can be responsible for the deaths of more innocent people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.