<
--------------
STRATFOR.com
--------------
THE INTERNET SOURCE FOR GLOBAL INTELLIGENCE
If it's in the news, it's too late...
WAR PLAN Part II: The Afghan Theater of Operations
September 25, 2001
Summary
Though a war on terrorism is fraught with peril for U.S. forces, the best plan appears to be combining small-scale, highly mobile special operations forces with limited carrier-based air strikes. Such a strategy could be quite effective if the war aim is carefully defined. The United States must first concentrate on toppling the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, rendering the position of Osama bin Laden untenable in that country.
Analysis
The Conceptual Framework
Afghanistan is critical to American war planning for two reasons. First, it is the base of Osama bin Laden and his extremist al-Qa'ida organization (the term al-Qa'ida means "base"); killing bin Laden and destroying his facilities in Afghanistan represents a war aim in its own right.
Second, the Taliban regime that governs Afghanistan has provided sanctuary for al-Qa'ida and possibly operational resources as well. Under the doctrine that any country that provided support for the Sept. 11 attackers shares responsibility for their actions, Afghanistan represents a hostile power subject to attack.
The most elegant war plan would be to invade Afghanistan, engage and annihilate its armed forces and occupy the country. But for the United States, the most elegant solution and military reality do not coincide. The geography, topography and geopolitics of Afghanistan and Central Asia make the concentration of sufficient force along Afghanistan's frontier extremely difficult to achieve. It also makes military operations both difficult and dangerous. Historically, outside powers have not been able to occupy and pacify Afghanistan.
It is always a danger sign when military capabilities prohibit the pursuit of the most elegant war plan -- especially when it becomes politically impossible to decline combat. Such a divergence frequently leads to strategic and operational confusion. Military planners sometimes overreach themselves, deludedly thinking resources at hand will be sufficient to achieve the elegant solution. This is a particularly intense possibility when extreme political pressure is involved. At other times, planners shift from elegant to inelegant objectives. That is, they create extremely complex and sometimes contradictory lesser war aims that, although theoretically suited to their resources, in practice lead to a diffusion of efforts and a division of forces.
(The Rest of the Story)
Related Analyses:
• War Plan: Part I
September 24, 2001
(c) 2001 Stratfor, Inc.
Dan
War Plan: Part II . . .