|
 onfusion
reigns in Afghanistan, or at least it has a good foothold. This
is the fog and friction of war magnified by distance, very limited
information, and fast-paced events. Make note that even the U.S.
military planners from the Pentagon and General Franks's staff were
apparently surprised at the rapidity and success of the Northern
Alliance campaign. The Taliban, if not yet "defeated,"
is clearly on the ropes. Taliban resistance seems to be focused
in the cities of Kunduz and Kandahar. Is it a sophisticated, just-in-time
shift to guerilla warfare that would embroil the U.S. in a quagmire?
They might be able to think of such a strategy, but they
lack the wherewithal to carry it off. Temporary reversal of fortunes
is always a possibility, but the end of organized Taliban resistance
is likely coming soon.
There are already
well-defined reports of an increased U.S. presence in northern Afghanistan
and air bases in Tajikistan. Surprisingly, defense officials are
also releasing information that there are about a hundred U.S. Special
Forces operating in the vicinity of Kandahar, on "special vehicles"
(militarized dune buggies, perhaps). They are reportedly searching
for Taliban and al Qaeda leadership, spotting for bombers, and shooting
when the opportunity arises. Some media report that the U.S. has
focused its search on near two-hundred caves and bunkers, with bin
Laden always on the move.
What is the
general shape of things to come? First, there will be continued
support of Northern Alliance forces as they consolidate their gains
and mop up pockets of resistance. The Taliban promises a fight to
the death in defense of Kandahar. Maybe. Second, expect less bombing
but increased ground action against (or in search of) what is left
of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Third, there will be increased humanitarian-aid
efforts. Coalition partners will likely provide the bulk of the
work force for this task, but U.S. airlift is sure to be taxed.
Weapons
Watch
About ten days ago there was a report of Marine AV-8s flying missions
into Afghanistan. One suspects that their missions were multi-purpose:
Familiarization with Afghan area-of-operations, assisting Navy fighter-bombers
with some optempo relief, and supporting/escorting Marine Special
Forces into southern Afghanistan. It appears that there is a Marine
Expeditionary Unit — Special Operations Capable (MEU-SOC) —
in that collection of amphibious forces off the shores of Pakistan.
It is easy to visualize Marine units (experts in urban warfare)
both engaged in Kandahar and helping search the caves of southeastern
Afghanistan. With Marines comes Marine air support — such as
AV-8s and helicopter gunships.
The airbase
in Tajikistan will apparently be home to 70-plus Air Force jets
— likely a mix of F-15s and A-10s. Both would be useful in
the two missions just described. F-15s could continue to deliver
precision munitions as well as provide very fast reaction times
(from Tajikistan or from orbits over southern Afghanistan). The
fast reactors could respond to ground-force requests for assistance,
ground-force-designated emerging targets, or some helicopter trying
to sneak bin Laden out of Afghanistan.
One should
put only limited faith in the Pakistani forces sent to seal their
border with Afghanistan and stop a bin Laden escape. Thousands of
freedom fighters have drifted from Pakistan to Afghanistan in recent
weeks with little effective border control (remember, the Pakistani
intelligence community created and sustained the Taliban and its
other owner/operator, al Qaeda).
The A-10s can
patrol kill zones and are designed to assist ground forces in dangerous
environments. The reported addition of three AC-130 gunships brings
the total number supporting anti-Taliban operations to nine. That
is nothing but very bad news for Taliban forces. Navy fighter bombers
will continue to concentrate on precision bombing, but likely at
a reduced rate. When the USS Stennis arrives, look for one
aircraft carrier to redeploy closer to the Persian Gulf, or return
home.
Nuclear
Notes
The president announced on November 14 that he and President Putin
of Russia have agreed to reduce strategic nuclear warheads to between
1,700 and 2,200 for each side, perhaps over the next ten years or
so. Currently, each side has between 6,000 and 7,000 such weapons.
The nuclear inventories are left-overs of the Cold War when deterrence
strategies required large numbers of weapons. Today, a smaller number
is probably correct for the emerging relationship between the two
countries.
We must assume
that planners believe the lowered numbers are sufficient, taking
into account the growing Chinese nuclear capability as well as the
arsenals of India and Pakistan. We must also assume that the potential
nuclear capabilities of Iraq and North Korea were given consideration
(maybe they will be covered by the missile-defense solution.) And,
we must assume that the effectiveness of new precision munitions
delivered by Stealth bombers have been factored in as substitutes
for nuclear weapons. We would hope that while the raw number of
weapons decrease, a portion of the nuclear laboratory structure
is being preserved to develop specialized weapons to deal with the
deeply buried targets, and the biological production and storage
facilities, of several adversaries.
|
