Re: Afghanistani Warfare.

[Jacob E Boucher <jbuchr@xxxxxx>]

And so begins the process (well, shifts into high gear) where armchair
generals such as ourselves jerk off over our pet warfare theories and
doctrines...

Here's a hint, Gurth.  The US Army of today is *not* the US Army of 1965.
Because the Lieutenants of the Vietnam war are the Generals of today, and
they know full well the dangers of a prolonged, unpopular conflict.  Also
take to heart that many military officers from that era are adamant that
the conflict *could* have been resolved if they had been allowed to do
their jobs as they saw fit.  The Vietnam war is the #1 reason the military
has developed multiple special forces (with small letters, not just Army
Special Forces) for special operations all over the world.  It is no
longer a lumbering, blind giant smashing about with a hammer, relying on
carpet bombing jungles and random artillery fire to win wars.  The army is
smaller, faster, better trained and far better equipped, and I certainly
hope far more enthusiastic.

And, as modern police technology has shown us, using "gizmos" to find
people on bicycles is actually a *good* idea.  The tech works, if there is
a will and the skill to use it.

Your arguments are the same naysaying that bombarded the military before
the Gulf War, fearing that we'd get into "another Vietnam".  Well, the
ground war lasted about 1/1000th the time as Vietnam did, and was a lot
more successful.  I will not claim that US lives won't be lost, and it
wouldn't be a hard fight, but I also wouldn't rely on any negative
hypothesis formed by how A) America fought in Vietnam or B) how the
Soviets fought in Afghanistan.  That was then, and this is now.



-- 
Jacob E. Boucher
PAGE OF THE DAY: If You Run, You'll Only Die Tired... 
http://www.snipercountry.com