The various dilemmas which face the US in dealing with Afghanistan are many and varied.

First you have the fundamental task of hauling equipment and men to a region, which is landlocked and surrounded by nations which are not exactly allies.

This is a time consuming issue - especially if we build up an occupying force which can control the vast regions which comprise Afghanistan.

With the goals of bringing bin Laden to justice and dismantling terrorist machinery and not distinguishing between terrorists and the nations who harbor them - we are now effectively at war with the Taliban regime.

Special forces can do a lot of things and are needed in this guerrila type conflict. However special forces alone cannot occupy a country and even the most elite special forces can't be expected to control Kabul or install the Northern Alliance.

Much destruction has left the Taleban's military infrastructure shattered, although they still have an army of unprofessional soldiers who can blend in with civilians and are effectively holed up in civilian towns and villages - which are political landmines to attack.

Now with the ragtag army of extremist and sympathetic Pakistanis - we are faced with some options to ponder.

We can steadily build up a 'line up' - a fighting front which can sweep over a territory and control the territory it passes over. This option means we kill all opposition and reign utter destruction on many villages and cities where the enemy hides out.

We can let this new army - which is unorganized and dispersed into various pockets - starve and sufffer through winter - but only if humanitarian aid is cut off. Which is as big a political landmine and even more likely to alienate many folks - regardless of the rational reason to cut aid.

In Vietnam, we would not drop food and rations to the Viet Cong behind enemy lines. Unfortunately the UN is also infiltrated with enemies of the US and that is why the UN is welcomed by the Taleban. UN convoys for all intents and purposes become means of communication for the enemy. Of course if special forces, attacked a convoy and took out corrupt UN operatives - there would be hell to pay.

So the US is fighting a war with one hand held behind its back.

For all we know - bin Laden was snuck out in the back of a truck in a UN convoy and has fled to some new locale.

American casualties will rise in a ground based 'line up' type of battle.

This battle style could cause some of our alliance members to cringe and complain.

This is why Myers keeps talking about a long haul.

American leadership must make a fundamental decision and build support for it, nationally and internationally.

It must decide whether it is willing to oust the Taleban quickly - within six months with ground forces...or if it will let winter's rough hand and information build up so that Taleban leaders can be knocked off by special forces and a new government can be installed as the Northern Alliance inches forward against equally ragtag forces.

Then their is Iraq and some of the other nations which may need to be dealt with sooner rather than later. Fortunately - our build up in the region will allow for fairly rapid movement of forces and supplies.

If another catastrophe occurs in the US or elsewhere in the world - there will build up support for limited tactical weapon deployment.

This, of course, would cause a whole new set of troubles. But in an increasingly destructive US civilian casualty count - the US will not hesitate to annihilate the sources with tactical weapons.

The Pakistani situation is troubling. This nation, now a nuclear power, itself has a govenment installed by a coup d' etat.

US and Israeli forces stand by, for the phone call to acquire Pakistan's nuclear arsenal should the government be overthrown or sufficiently unstable to warrant such an action.

Of course if we take these weapons, India might get some ideas after we leave. So we have to get some agreement and cooperation ahead of time.

Of course after we oust the Taliban...

oops gotta go again...

;-)

SDAI-Tech1