|
U.S.
Planning Full Invasion / Bombing Success Thus Far
Excerpts
from article describing rumors regarding a full invasion of
Afghanistan being planned by the Pentagon for the Spring of
2002 ...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
The
Pentagon is considering mounting a ground invasion of Afghanistan
if the current bombing and special forces campaign fails to
achieve its aims, American defence sources said yesterday.
The
allies would carry out sporadic bombing attacks throughout the
winter while the opposition Northern Alliance was built up into
a workable ally before a full-scale ground invasion in the spring.
Northern
Alliance fighters armed with
rocket propelled grenades move into
new positions in Jabal us Saraj north of
the Afghan capital, Kabul, 10/29/01
...
The new plan emerged as Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, held
talks in Washington with his US counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld,
amid suggestions of differences between Britain and America over
the prosecution of the war.
Mr
Rumsfeld originally rejected invasion plans put forward by Gen
Tommy Franks, the commander-in-chief of US Central Command,
who is running the military operation, telling him to plan for
a series of special forces raids.
But
the difficulties of gathering intelligence was shown by the
rapid aborting of a US special forces mission into Afghanistan
12 days ago. Resistance was far higher than expected and it
has made military planners think again.
Gen
Franks had now been given his head and told to go off and organise
it all, a move that led to his current tour of countries in
the region to see what they are prepared to offer in the way
of bases, the sources said.
"The
plan now is for a long winter of sporadic attacks and the occasional
special forces mission," one said. "Meanwhile, we
will be getting trained up and organised for a conventional
invasion in the spring.
Speaking
after yesterday's talks, Mr Rumsfeld said that, while the "modest"
numbers of US special forces now on the ground were nowhere
near those used in the Second World War or Korea, "we have
not ruled that out". Mr Hoon added: "Nor have we."
...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
Excerpt
from an article detailing the success of the bombing campaign
thus far ...
-
- - being excerpts - - -
The
Taliban's increasingly strident propaganda campaign claimed
yesterday that none of its soldiers had been killed after more
than three weeks of US bombing which had achieved nothing but
the "genocide of Afghan civilians".
But
despite criticism echoed by some western commentators, there
is no doubt that the bombing is almost certainly the most targeted
and measured in history. It has been largely successful.
Flight deck crewman watches an
F/A-18 Hornet launch from the USS
Theodore Roosevelt, 10/30/01
...
The allied air campaign is widely misunderstood. It is much
smaller in scale than earlier conflicts. During the Gulf War,
the coalition air forces averaged 1,500 missions a day. There
were fewer during Kosovo, but the allies still deployed more
than 1,000 aircraft at times. The maximum over Afghanistan on
any one day has been 100 and yesterday it was just 79, including
aid drops.
If
America had attacked the Taliban in the same sort of strength
that it used against the Iraqis and Serbs, it might well have
totally destroyed the regime within the space of a week. US
aircraft destroyed Afghan air defences within days, as opposed
to weeks during the two earlier campaigns. But they have been
constrained by a need to keep the civilian infrastructure intact
and to restrict the number of civilian casualties to a minimum.
A
heavier campaign would have resulted in far more civilian casualties
but coming in a very short period the numbers might well have
had less effect on the allies. It is the steady series of small
numbers of casualties over an extended period that has raised
emotions.
Eliminating
civilian casualties is an impossibility in any kind of warfare.
In fact, smart bombs are far better at finding their target
now than they were even during the Gulf War.
The
US has become a victim of the expectations raised by smart technology,
yet around five per cent will miss simply because their guidance
systems fail. Some will miss because a pilot will make a mistake
while under pressure to control his aircraft and programme the
bomb's guidance system.
Despite
the problems, western journalists in territory occupied by the
Northern Alliance have heard reports from the Northern Alliance
that the vast majority of bombs dropped by US aircraft on the
Taliban front lines are hitting their targets with amazing accuracy.
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
Excerpt
from an article detailing the use of U.S. forces to assist airstrikes
in northern Afghanistan, and other pertinent news regarding
the military campaign to date ...
-
- - being excerpts - - -
The
Pentagon moved yesterday to step up its support of the anti-Taliban
rebels in northern Afghanistan, acknowledging for the first
time that U.S. troops are on the ground to coordinate intensified
airstrikes and signaling that additional military assets may
be moved to Central Asia in the coming weeks.
Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said "something like 80 percent"
of yesterday's airstrikes were aimed at frontline troops of
Afghanistan's ruling Taliban militia. A senior defense official
said the strikes focused on Taliban units barring the opposition
Northern Alliance from taking Afghanistan's major northern city,
Mazar-e Sharif, and its capital, Kabul.
Rumsfeld
said the U.S. combat troops in northern Afghanistan are playing
a liaison role with the Northern Alliance, designating targets
for airstrikes and helping arrange logistical support. "We
do have a very modest number of ground troops in the country,"
Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon. "They're in the
north. We've had others on the ground who have gone in and come
out in the south."
...
The shift of the Pentagon's attention to northern Afghanistan
after several weeks of concentrating airstrikes on the south
of the country could provide several military and political
benefits to the United States and its allies.
By
helping the Northern Alliance advance, it would enable the United
States to point to progress in the 24-day-old war as well as
open up northern land corridors for humanitarian food relief
for starving Afghans as winter approaches. ...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
|
The
Age of Darkness
Excerpts
from article describing the life of a 10 year old girl in present
day Afghanistan ...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
If
she can't escape, ten-year-old Vida will soon become like
all women in Afghanistan, who are forced into the burka and
cease to exist in the eyes of men
Imagine you have the misfortune to be born a girl in Afghanistan.
This is what would happen. There would be various degrees
of hell, depending on whether you lived in areas held by the
Taleban or by the Northern Alliance.
But
the scenario is still the same: you are born into a life of
sorrow. For a while, though, until you are four or five, you
play freely. You run barefoot, play in the dust, ride your
donkey, kick a ball.
Then
one day, without warning, the door to the world is slammed
shut.
Your
mother comes home with a headscarf and makes you wear it;
you are separated from boys. If you live in the north, you
can go to school until you are a certain age, but there will
probably be no books for you.
If
you make it to the university for girls in Faizabad and study
medicine, for instance, you will emerge so badly educated
that you will not be allowed to operate on a corpse.
Later
you will be covered from head to toe by a hot, itchy burka.
You will not be able to see or hear while wearing it, and
you will stumble as the material catches in your shoes, which
is the point: you are meant to be subdued.
If
you live in Taleban-controlled areas, you will sit at home
all day, with the windows painted so that you cannot see out
and no one can see you.
Sometimes
you might venture outside, but burkas are expensive, so you
share one with your sister and your mother. That means you
can never go out together.
If
you do not wear the burka, you will be beaten or stoned. You
know that the slightest misbehaviour could result in a death
sentence.
You are made to wear silent shoes so that you are not heard;
the point being that you don’t exist. You become invisible.
The light inside you is methodically extinguished.
Your
early life, that time before the burka, when you were free
to run, laugh, skip or play with your friends, becomes a distant
and impossible dream.
Vida
Nazir does not look like other ten-year-old girls in this
dusty village at the beginning of the vast Central Asian Steppe.
It is not just because she wears a diamanté headband
in her glossy hair instead of a headscarf, and a sweater emblazoned
with a cartoon over her shalwar kameez. It is because she
still has a light in her eyes, a strength to her character,
and her posture is proud and defiant.
She
has not yet been ground down by an extreme interpretation
of Islam, and she is still young enough, and idealistic enough,
to believe that her life can be different from the other females.
At
ten, she has the desire to try to save herself from this place,
a place where a woman simply disappears. She
is like this partly because her mother, Farahnaz, is the extraordinary
woman who founded the first women’s group in Afghanistan,
and who also refuses to wear a burka. “I don’t wear
one because we are human,” she says, indignantly.
...
Until she can escape, Vida dreams. She practises her English,
reading aloud from her few books. Today it is a story about
the inventions of Leonardo da Vinci and his desire to fly.
“He believed that man could have giant wings and fly,”
she says in her sing-song voice.
It
is a startling analogy for Vida and her stilted life. As I
watch her tiny figure waving goodbye from her whitewashed
house on the hillside overlooking the river, I remember something
her mother told me: “A bird has two wings. Men and women
are two wings of society. If one is broken, the other one
can’t fly.”
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
- The Times
[link inactive]
The
Unhysterical Guide to Staying Safe
Excerpt
from a guide containing common sense tips to being
prepared and staying
safe in the event that you find yourself face-to-face with a
threat from a terrorist attack ...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
The
shock of the September 11 airplane attacks has made the improbable
and the catastrophic suddenly seem possible.
...
But some scenarios are more likely than others. That's why we've
assembled this guide to help you sort out the threats for yourself
and see what precautions people are taking.
The
possibility of any of these things happening is extremely remote.
Even assembling the needed biological or chemical agents would
require far more organization, money and expertise than was
evident on September 11.
But,
in the interest of being prepared for the unlikely and also
calming down any unnecessary fears, here's what's being done,
and what you can do. ...
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
Scramjet
Test
Excerpt
from an article describing a test of new engine which has the
potential to some day dramatically reduce long-distance flight
times. ...
-
- - begin excerpts - - -
...
Experts say scramjet technology has the potential to reduce
the flying time from London to Sydney to two hours, and substantially
cut the cost of space launches.
Traditional
approach
Scramjets
are simple in theory; they have no moving parts and grab the
oxygen needed to combust fuel from the atmosphere.
That
makes them more efficient than conventional rocket motors, which
carry their own oxygen supply on board, adding weight and cutting
the potential payload. But the big problem is that scramjets only
start to work at speeds greater than five times the speed of sound,
or Mach 5.
A
few weeks ago, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
in the United States launched a scramjet from a gun. The Americans
say their experimental engine flew under its own power for a
fraction of a second - a world first.
A
Nasa scramjet test in June failed when the missile that was intended
to bring the engine up to its operating speed went off course.
The
engine tested at Woomera was built by an international consortium
led by researchers at the University of Queensland and is jokingly
referred to as a "scroungejet".
"Ours
is a low-cost alternative, and we've had to develop all sorts
of ancillary equipment on the cheap," said Allan Paull,
project head at the university.
"We've
bought a lot of bits and pieces off the shelf from automotive
shops," he added.
-
- - end excerpts - - -
Source:
|
