|
Al, Thanks, as always, for many inciteful posts. It's REAL important to keep in mind that all the problems don't have to be solved, to try to take on this evil. (Is there a choice about taking it on...?) India and Pakistani soldiers may not be willing to forget generations of life experiences and fight, shoulder to shoulder (which may, or may not, become necessary). All they have to do is recognize that their country may be hit next, and set aside their difference sufficiently to see the common goal: survival of civilization. Some countries may provide very active support (up to and including armies or "peacekeeping forces"), some just moral support, and some just lip service. If the U.S. government rewards them accordingly, you will see a shift towards the active support end, and a lot of other things will fall into place, too. The trick is to watch your back with the countries that provide lip service. The U.S. might be REAL surprised who it's friends really are, so I would hope they wouldn't rule out any country, out of hand. Let each countries' actions speak... IMHO. jt -----Original Message----- From: midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com [mailto:midrange-nontech-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of MacWheel99@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 11:18 PM To: TYR@yahoogroups.com; non-technical discussions Subject: Fwd: Long Campaign -- This place is a dynamite resource. In depth behind the headlines understandings. While reading this STRATFOR analysis, it might be helpful to correlate the names of the places with the regional geography map at beginning of http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/4321512 With respect to air bases, Oman is Pink (pro Afghanistan), Quatar & UAR are Green (pro US) but sandwiched between Pinks, India is Green, but are we really going to solve the India Pakistan confrontation overnight & have both of them involved as equal partners in this alliance? It would be lovely if that conflict could be solved but I do not have high confidence any time soon. MacWheel99@aol.com (Alister Wm Macintyre) (Al Mac) Sep 11 Favorite Links: http://www.semitrue.com/thankyou/ Great discussion archives http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TYR http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-nontech Newspapers World Wide http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/news/foreign_newspapers.htm http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/news/US_Newspapers.htm Intelligence Briefings by country http://www.c-span.org/international/links.asp http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/central/09/17/asia.support/ http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html http://www.economist.com/countries http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/search/list/index.html http://www.debka.com/ http://www.stratfor.com -- Mailing-List: contact redalert-help@stratfor.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Delivered-To: mailing list redalert@stratfor.com Delivered-To: moderator for redalert@stratfor.com Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:47:53 -0500 (CDT) From: <alert@stratfor.com> To: redalert@stratfor.com Subject: Long Campaign ___________________________________________________________________ S T R A T F O R THE GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE COMPANY http://www.stratfor.com ___________________________________________________________________ 18 September 2001 -> ON OUR WEBSITE TODAY: * Central Asia: Backdoor to Afghanistan http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109182330.htm * Egypt: A Precarious Ally http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109182150.htm * The Limits of Solidarity http://www.stratfor.com/home/0109181830.htm ___________________________________________________________________ Washington Prepares for Long Campaign 2300 GMT, 010918 Summary As Washington tries to build an international coalition against terrorism, the Bush administration is preparing the nation for a long campaign rather than a single retaliatory strike. With Afghanistan the primary initial target, Washington must deal with a problem it has rarely encountered since World War II: attacking a landlocked country. Analysis The Bush administration is searching the globe for coalition support for its war on terrorism. At the same time, it is preparing Americans for a long campaign that may not include a rapid, high-profile, retaliatory strike. Washington's initial military response to the Sept. 11 attacks will shape U.S. relations not only with Middle Eastern nations but also with the rest of the world. For this reason the administration must carefully consider its reprisal so as not to undermine the confidence of allies or fuel wider enmity among Arab and Islamic nations. Although strikes are inevitable, they will likely take much more time and preparation than the cruise missile strikes that followed the 1998 bombings of the embassies in Africa. By labeling Osama bin Laden the key suspect, Washington has also marked Afghanistan, where the Saudi exile has been living, as the likely first target. This presents a problem the U.S. military has rarely encountered since World War II: attacking a landlocked nation. The effectiveness of U.S. carrier battle groups will be severely reduced in any operation against Afghanistan. In terms of logistics, Washington must find either land bases for a sustained coalition air strike against Afghanistan or provide in-air refueling for carrier-based planes. Afghanistan's neighbors, with whom the United States has tenuous relations, limit both choices. Afghanistan is bounded by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to the north, Iran to the west, China to the east and Pakistan to the south. Any partnership with the northern neighbors will require substantial negotiations with Russia, which retains a strong influence and military presence in Central Asia. Even with permission to fly out of Central Asia, the supply chain into these nations would be long and difficult to maintain. Iran, which has no love for the Taliban, is even more unlikely to offer basing for U.S. aircraft. China, too, is unlikely to offer basing, and even if it does, significant supply line problems would remain. Washington's best hope for regional assistance, then, is Pakistan. Pakistan was once a close ally, and its port access is useful for logistical purposes. Pakistan's long border along the southern and eastern parts of Afghanistan also offers the closest access to the cities of Kandahar, the Taliban headquarters, and Kabul, the frontline in the battle between the Taliban and the opposition Northern Alliance. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has offered substantial cooperation to the United States in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. But pro-Taliban forces inside Pakistan threaten his hold on power. These threats come from those who feel he is too secular as well as from ethnic rivalries within Pakistan. Musharraf is a Muhajir, an Urdu-speaking member of an immigrant family from India. Although Urdu-speakers have dominated Pakistan's political and economic elite, the many of the country's indigenous groups -- including the native Pushtun population, which geographically straddles the border with Afghanistan -- view them as usurpers. Even with Musharraf's promises of cooperation, military planners in Washington must be absolutely sure that he has control of his entire military. The main questions in Washington now are whether Pakistan's offer of assistance is firm and whether the government is stable enough to allow the United States to strike Afghanistan from Pakistan. Whether the U.S. military is based in Pakistan or not, simply flying over Pakistan on the way to Afghanistan poses a serious security challenge. First, bringing significant firepower to bear on Afghanistan requires Washington to bring in more carriers or - - for a sustained and more effective operation -- to establish land bases. The nearest places for such land bases are in India, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. If the aircraft are launched from carriers, they will require in- air refueling somewhere over Pakistan. This presents a significant security risk: Tanker aircraft would provide a ready target for potential rogue elements inside Pakistan's army or air force. With the situation in Pakistan still uncertain, it would be hard for a U.S. military commander to confidently fly tankers over Pakistan. The loss of a single tanker to surface-to-air missiles or fighter aircraft would also lead to the loss of mission-bound aircraft that depended on the tanker for fuel. Similar problems pertain to operations not based on carriers. Because land-based aircraft generally have a longer combat radius, it is possible that flights from Oman, the UAE or Qatar could refuel over the Pakistani coast and still have the range to strike at Kandahar or other targets in Afghanistan. Operating from land bases in the Gulf or from India, however, would require a long buildup. It is for this kind of protracted operation rather than a quick retaliation that Washington is preparing. During a briefing Sept. 18, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld reiterated the dominant theme in Washington now -- that this will be a new style of war, one that will be fought for a long time. Rumsfeld emphasized that this is "not a matter of a single event" nor a campaign against one or two terrorist leaders. Washington needed six months to gear up for Operation Desert Storm, and preparations for strikes on Afghanistan or other targets may take as long. Although pressure from within the United States for a retaliatory strike will grow, President George W. Bush currently enjoys high popularity ratings. His administration is much more likely to take the heat now rather than risk a disastrous attack that accomplishes little. If Washington could fully trust Pakistan's stability, it would likely have begun operations already. But the administration is making every effort to prepare a long-term strategy -- to avoid the appearance abroad and at home of a Clinton-esque strategy of launching an ineffective cruise-missile strike against some tents in Afghanistan as well as to avoid undermining tenuous relations with the Arab and Muslim world. This strategy may involve more carrier-based aircraft, land-based assets or even long-range strategic bombers from the United States and the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Such strikes will ultimately take place but only after the administration can overcome the logistical concerns posed by Pakistan's delicate political balance ___________________________________________________________________ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< SEND THIS TO A FRIEND! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you like this analysis? Then forward it to a friend! Got this from a friend? Get your own by becoming a member! http://www.stratfor.com/COMPANY/info.htm <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ___________________________________________________________________ CONTACTS AND CUSTOMER SERVICES: STRATFOR 700 Lavaca, Suite 405 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512-744-4300 Internet: http://www.stratfor.com/ Email: info@stratfor.com ADVERTISE For information on advertising in the GIU or any section of the STRATFOR website, please email us at advertising@stratfor.com ==================================================== (c) 2001 Strategic Forecasting LLC. All rights reserved. _______________________________________________ This is the Non-Technical Discussion about the AS400 / iSeries (Midrange-NonTech) mailing list To post a message email: Midrange-NonTech@midrange.com To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options, visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-nontech or email: Midrange-NonTech-request@midrange.com Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-nontech.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
