Since no one seems to care, I'm going to post it. Here's what's being deployed so far: Army - 3rd Corps: 1st Cavalry Division (Armored), 4th Infantry Division (Mech), 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Armored), 3rd Armored Corps Artillery (Hvy), 13th Corps Support Command; over 60,000 troops and up to 100,000 (this Corps could singlehandedly defeat the vast majority of the world's national armies) 10th Mountain Division (Lt. Infantry - specialized for warfare in terrain like what we'll see in Afghanistan; excellent infantry) 82nd Airborne Division (Lt. Infantry / Airborne - the best infantry division on the planet, bar none; can be put anywhere, anytime) 101st Air Assault Division (Infantry / Heliborne Assault - thousands of infantry, and hundreds of helicopters - including Apaches, which gives them a strong anti-armor capability) 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment (Armored - these guys mauled the Iraqi Republican Guard in 1991 - their main battle is now training curriculum at US Armor school) 75th Ranger Regiment (SOCOM - Special Forces infantry, notable for their night fighting and ability to take any airfield anywhere on the planet on a moments' notice) "Tiger" Brigade on MPS and another Armored Brigade prepositioned in Kuwait (Heavy Armored - with the -A2 version of the M1 MBT, this armor can defeat anything on the battlefield, even if severely outnumbered) Virtually all of SOCOM (Special Operations Command - the most capable soldiers on the planet, in every possible way) Navy: 4-6 CVBGs (Carrier Battle Groups); each 1 nuclear carrier, 1-2 nuclear submarines with Tomahawks, 3-4 CGs / DDGs (guided-missile cruisers/destroyers), 1 FFG (frigate), 3-4 ARG ships (Amphibious Ready Group - amphibious ships with Marines, tanks, helos, aircraft, landing craft, etc), 3-8 support ships (tankers, cargo ships, hospital ships, etc); 4-6 CAGs (carrier air wings) each from 75-90 planes: 54-72 F-14A/B and F/A-18C/E Fighter/Bombers; plus E-2C Hawkeye AEWs, EA-6B Prowler EWs, 6+ helicopters each, and a score other logistics aircraft Independent ships (numbers unknown): dozens of Ticonderoga CGs (Aegis missile Cruisers w/ Tomahawks, Arleigh Burke DDGs (also Aegis w/ Tomahawks) and Spruance DDs (which carry lotsa Tomahawks) are moving towards the area Air Force: (exact numbers are unknown) All B-52G Heavy Bombers are already in Diego Garcia All B-1B "Bones" Supersonic Bombers are moving there or have already arrived All B-2A "Spirit" Stealth Bombers are available any time Over 200 F-15C/E and F-16C Fighter/Bombers are already based in the ME (Turkey, Saudi, and Kuwait) A "large number" of F-15s and F-16s is currently reinforcing these assets in the Persian Gulf... Also support planes like the E-3A AWACS and E-8 JSTARS, plus over a hundred transports... Marines: 4-6 MEU-SOCs (Marine Expeditionary Unit - Special Operations Capable) afloat, plus a Marine Division is mobilizing... From your favorite warmonger who many of you think is full of it, and who still insists that most of this is to hit Iraq... Feel free to ask any questions. I'm going to modify this post as more info comes.
Hmm... Just added this up and it comes out to about 8+ Divisions total ground strength. That's alot of ground power... Over 1,500 tanks; over 2,000 APCs/AIFVs. Close to 1,000 Arty pieces. Close to 1,000 Aircraft, and more to be deployed. You'd think we were fighting the Soviet Union, not a backward semi-state like Afghanistan... Say "Hello" to my high explosive di*k, Saddam. (hint: I'm trying to warn you guys of what's about to happen)
I just don't think this thread got enough views, and I think everyone ought to really consider its implications, so I'm posting this message to bring it to everyone's attention again... (I love that # of views feature...) Good. Now that you've read the initial post, I want you to think. Think. Think... Think harder, glynch.
Treeman, I've been thinking the same thing all along. Sure we're going to go after Bid Laden. But make no mistake, we will be mopping up in Iraq. Hardley anything is said in the media about Iraq and that's by design. Mr. Hussein's days are numbered. And when we do go in the crybabies will come out in droves. Wah...why are we invading this poor povered country?? Wah....Wah....Wah..... "It's On!!!!"
Treeman, you seem to want my thoughts. I'm afraid you might be disapointed in the scope of the War on Terrorism. According to what I'm seeing. Some special forces, the Northern Alliance and Afgans who like simple things like sending their girls to school and playing music will wind up dislodging the Taliban and ultimately BinLaden and his closest supporters so we can capture or kill them. We"ve been told his organization has supporters in 62 other countries of the world. However we are unlikely to have major ground troop invasions of those countries, with the possible exception of Iraq. The operations against his supporters will likely be low key undercover actions. It's even possible a few of them may succeed in killing themselves iand others in suicide attacks. Pakistan may largely succeed in stopping the madrascas and cutting off some of the future trainees for terrorism. The price will be massive US aid to Pakistan or we will soon see a return to school as usual. Powell who is a career military man and not an armed chair fan of the military or ex- occasional national guardsman or some such may vry well succeed in keeping the hardliners from acheiving their goal of a major ground war. The real military still has a lot of combat experience from Vietnam and are naturally cautious of losing their troops lives unnecessarily. At that point we will be back to other steps to fight terrorism: undramatic steps as increasing security at airports, truck depots and other strategic places in the US, economic sanctions, massive developmental aid to various Muslim nations and a change in policy toward Israel etc. The containment of terrorism will likely be more on the lines of the containment of the Soviet Union in the Cold War and will not entail large clashes between ground troops. Hopefully you will be a patritotic American and support the additional taxes on upper income Americans that will be necessary for these costly steps if we are not going to have massive inflation due to deficit spending.
The Deputy Secretary of Defense told NATO and reporters that the military element of the "war on terrorism" would be the smallest and, in some respects, the least important. He said that "financial, political and intellegence" operations would take a much larger role in bringing terrorists to justice.
I heard that, and I would expect them to say nothing else. That's exactly what they're supposed to say - one of the most important aspects of war is the art of deception... If the military aspect is really to be so small, then why is nearly all of our active Army, active Navy, and a good chunk of our active Air Force being deployed? They're not deploying to help the area's population herd goats and pick dates... Of course, there's actually a large grain of truth in what he said; Al Qaeda can't really be moved against effectively with conventional military forces. Special Forces will deal with them in situations where force is necessary, and otherwise the attack on them will be mainly financial and political, with infiltration (intelligence) facilitating all aspects of that "attack". But that just begs the same question again: If we're not going to conduct large-scale maneuvers against our enemies in terrorist, then what are all those large-scale troops and hardware for?
glynch: And I thought you were an idiot. I pretty much agree with just about everything you said in your post. The war in Afghanistan will be won by the Northern Alliance (with a bit of US help), and there probably will not be large scale invasions anywhere except Iraq. Aside from those two countries, most of the action will be covert, financial, political, etc. Although I would personally not be surprised if the Bekaa Valley was attacked, and the chemical warfare facility the Germans built for the Libyans, I wouldn't be surprised if both of those countries (Syria/Lebanon and Libya) were persuaded by other means to dismantle those facilities... I am well aware that military men are generally the last ones to want to go to war (they do the dying, after all), but this situation is analogous to the kamikaze problem in WWII, and there is only one way to defend against kamikaze attacks: take them out before they can strike. But the military is pretty pumped for this one - remember that the Pentagon was attacked, too. On the whole, though, I think you've got the situation in pretty much the right perspective now. I'm impressed.
I heard a terrific report from the BBC last night about a military campaign and several of their military experts agreed that there would likely be air strikes in targeted regions and tactical incursions by special forces but that the significant presence of the military in the region was to do two specific things: 1. Demonstrate that the US is the big dog on the block and that we can mobilize anything it wants when it needs to do so. 2. Lend any and all support to the region in the instance of a significant response from either the terrorists or any countries in the region. One gentlemen, a former minister of defense for NATO I believe, said that the US has been in nearly constant communication with EU members, particualarly England, and that the US presence was meant to send a clear message that the US COULD strike at any time if need be. He made it fairly clear that the US and EU, among others, had agreed that any type of military strike of more than of covert nature would be a combined coordinated effort. He also said, quite interestingly, that the US, when it began sending the military might overseas, did not believe it would receive the nearly unanimous support from Arab states, China and Russia. It also did not think that the Northern Alliance (now known as the United Front) in Afghanistan would help, let alone be aided by the Russians in their fight. There is a real belief on the part of military strategists that the US will have a combined effort of covert ops, targeted air strikes and support of the United Front. The gentleman said that, up until late last week, the US did not realize what a difficult job it would be to root out the terrorists AND how much support they would have in doing so from across the globe.
Jeff, I'm actually a little surprised that we've gotten such widespread international support as well, especially from the likes of China. Now the Russians I expected, but... I am not convinced by the argument that this massive deployment is just a show of strength and resolve. This deployment is truly massive and is complete overkill (and totally unnecessary) if we are only planning on covert operations and limited air strikes in Afghanistan. Also, if you look at where many of the deployments are taking place (where exactly they're being sent), it only makes sense if we're going to hit Iraq. To hit Afghanistan, we'd deploy all of our ground forces to Tajikistan, and our air forces to there, Pakistan, and the Indian Ocean. Most of it is being sent to the Persian Gulf, and you can't hit Afghanistan from there unless you fly over Iran (you simply cannot hit it from there with ground, even heliborne troops). But the real issue is that it makes no sense to leave Saddam in power if you're determined to take out bin Laden. Saddam is far worse, IMHO, because he already has an entire state's apparatus and assets supporting him, and he already has at the very least chem/bio weapons and possibly even a few nukes. And he has even more hatred for the US (and the Bush's in particular) than Osama does... No way Saddam comes out of this alive.
No, and I hope I never have to. I am most likely going to join up (couple of weeks), though, and if I have to I will go into a combat zone. Only a maniac would actually want to, though. Why do you ask?
Treeman: Agreed, on all points. Something big is going to go down. We are (rightfully so, IMO) not being told the whole truth here. As has been said, it will take Special Forces to go into Afghanistan to get to Bin Laden, with very few air strikes or anything else simply because there isn't much in Afghanistan to hit. Like Treemen said, we're sending FAR more than what is needed with all the international support we have. The many deployments can't simply be a show of force with all the money it costs to deploy so much. We're going in somewhere, and Iraq is the likely target.
Congress passed a $40 billion aid package almost immediately after it happened, and about half of that was to be allocated in an emergency defense fund. $20 billion is enough to fight a large-scale war, I think, and if it's not then they will appropriate more. It seems a bit much to fund SF operations against the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and Osama (especially since they're already funded), but about right if we're going to deploy - and use - a large conventional force somewhere... What did the Gulf War cost, $12 billion?
I would suggest that while Saddam might be a far worse threat at this time, he is much more managable than bin laden. Hussein is limited because his ability to extend his reach is limited to the borders of his country, and the limited sphere of his political influence. Outside of his borders, all of Hussein's actions have a price, as political favors and associations are two-way in nature. I give you something, you give me something back. He also operates on the traditional governmental model that the CIA is used to dealing with. Bin laden's appeal, potentialy, could spread to maybe 5% of the world's Islamic population. This population is spread out accross borders, they operate outside the patterns which governments are used to, and they expect nothing in return. What they get back will come from god. In theory, bin laden's influence and power could spread much further than Hussein's ever could. Hussein's threat against the US is marginalised by his government's physical, material nature. Even if he had nukes, I question whether he could deliver them to the US. While he may be able to strike at Arab nations or US bases, that's nothing new. Additionally, his Socialist Arab government is a counterforce to the Islamic Populist movement that bin laden is pushing. If every one in the ME is fighting against the US, but pushing in differnet directions, there is no mommentum. If everybody, hovever, pushes in the same direction at once, then the ME becomes a threat to the US.
Ottoman: Those are all excellent points. Saddam knows he's walking a thin line between life and death at the hands of the US, and is very careful about what he does. He is insane, not stupid. He will make sure to see that any terrorism attack against the US will not have his fingerprints on it, even if his intelligence service did sponsor, plan, and/or carry out the attack. This guy was a professional hit man before he became a dictator, a little known fact, and he is very thorough. There is no need for him to actually order a WMD attack against the US. All he has to do is tell his Interior Minister "Hey, I thought we only had 800lbs of anthrax, and you're showing me 900lbs here. We have 800lbs, and none of it will go to waste. I think that Osama has a disposal facility for this product. Do you understand?" That extra 100lbs of anthrax spore will then be given to someone who will put it to good use... Hitler reportedly never actually authorized the Final Solution, either. He just made it understood to his aides what he wanted done. BTW, although Saddam's Ba'ath Party used to be completely socialist, it relies heavily now on religious dogma to drum up support in the Arab world. For example, last year Saddam announced the creation of a Jihad Army, to be 3 million men strong (not nearly that many joined) of all islamic nations and ethnicities, in order to free Palestine. Now, what does Saddam want with Palestine? He doesn't care about the Palestinians - that was a PR stunt to capitalize on his image as the only Arabic Muslim to successfully stand up to the West. He's using the religion angle ever more now, and he and bin Laden are both hitting the same segments.
