March 19, 2004
NO SANCTUARY:
Afghan offensive: Grand plans hit rugged reality (Syed Saleem Shahzad, 3/20/04, Asia Times)
The plan to eradicate the Afghan resistance was straightforward: US-led coalition forces would drive from inside Afghanistan into the last real sanctuary of the insurgents, and meet the Pakistani military driving from the opposite direction. There would then be no safe place left to hide for the Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants, or, presumably, for Osama bin Laden himself. The plan's implementation began with the launch of operation "Mountain Storm" around March 15.But the insurgents have a plan of their own, which they have revealed to Asia Times Online. Conceived by foreign resistance fighters of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Arab origin, it is a classic guerrilla stratagem that involves enmeshing the mighty military forces of the United States and its allies in numerous local conflicts, diverting them from their real goal and dissipating their strength.
The insurgents' plan, too, has been put into effect, and the fierce fighting in Pakistan's tribal agency of South Waziristan last Tuesday, when resistance fighters and their tribal sympathizers took on the Pakistani military and routed it, was an early manifestation. Now Pakistan must quell its own rebel tribespeople before it continues to help the US with Mountain Storm. Indeed, Pakistan is attempting just that, on Thursday launching a "full force" operation in South Waziristan, using artillery and helicopter gunships. At the same time, tribal opposition to the Pakistani military has spread to North Waziristan - all according to plan, it seems.
Boy, these guys just don't get it. The whole reason that this action had to come after Iraq and that we continue to support General Musharraf is because this is the necessary quagmire. It is not sufficient to round-up a few al Qaeda types in a police action--the region has to be dealt with semi-permanently. This is where the war ends. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 19, 2004 1:55 PM
Do any of these reporters have any military experience at all? It is suicidal for guerilla forces to become involved in a fixed, prolonged battle with regular army forces.
Posted by: jd watson at March 19, 2004 3:19 PMHaving your small guerilla force surrounded by thousands of regular military with artillery and air support and assisted by CIA and US Special Ops, with conventional US Forces waiting in ambush at any escape route is not what I would classify as "classic guerrilla stratagem". I would likely classify this scenario as the "Butch and Sundance Kid Against the Bolivian Army Stratagem", where the end result will be the same.
Syed Saleem Shahzad oviously graduated with honors from the Baghdad Bob school of journalism.
Posted by: Mike M at March 19, 2004 4:27 PMCome on guys - it's been almost a week and we haven't achieved a clear and overwhelming victory, therefore it's a quagmire. I mean, look at how that two week pause outside of Baghdad ended up as a nightmare of WWI style trench warfare with massive US losses.
Sarcasm aside, I think OJ's right, that a long running battle in this area is a feature, not a bug, because it will chew up Caliphascist supporters at a good clip.
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at March 19, 2004 6:59 PMTo answer your question, jd, no.
When I was a young reporter, almost all my editors had served in WW2, many in combat, and you couldn't get any nonsense about conventional ops past them. They didn't get Vietnam, though -- different way -- and you could get any amount of crap past them on that.
The man who became publisher of the Wall St. Journal got on the job escalator with an obviously faked story from Vietnam. (Aided by a naive editor who was, in other respects, the best editor I ever had the joy of working for.)
Now, nobody knows nothin', and you can get any nonsense published. The USA Today story about Kelley today says it all.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 19, 2004 8:36 PM"Afghan resistance," says the Pakistani-Indian version of Al Jazeera.
Posted by: narciso at March 19, 2004 9:42 PM