NEWSLINKS US EDITION SOUTH ASIA COLUMNISTS DIARY SPECIALS INTERVIEWS CAPITAL BUZZ REDIFF POLL THE STATES ELECTIONS ARCHIVES US ARCHIVES SEARCH REDIFF
Security experts in Delhi are sceptical of the chances of success if United States ground troops were to be deployed in Afghanistan to launch retaliatory attacks against the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington.
They feel that while US aerial strikes could produce limited success provided they hit the hideouts of Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden, whom the US suspects to be the mastermind behind the attacks, ground operations, codenamed 'Noble Eagle', could end in disaster.
Bin Laden is reported to have already taken to the mountains anticipating US strikes.
The experts said committing ground troops into Afghanistan would be full of risks, given the mountainous terrain and the known prowess of the Afghans in mountain warfare.
"If I was a military adviser to the US government, the last thing I would tell them is to send in ground troops because Afghanistan is a snake pit. Who do you lean on for support?" wondered Gen V N Sharma, a former Indian army chief.
"Ground troops will be massacred. Even for operations by special forces like commandos, some sort of local support is needed," he added.
The British army had tried twice in the 19th century to invade the arid mountainous country in a bid to create a buffer to protect the Indian empire. However, the Afghan tribals massacred the British troops.
The erstwhile Soviet Union, which sent in troops to Afghanistan in 1979 to protect its southern borders, retreated after nine years and the death of more than 13,000 soldiers.
US President George W Bush has said he wants bin Laden 'dead or alive', but the experts said this was easier said than done.
They said that unless the Taleban leadership of Afghanistan hands over bin Laden to Pakistan, which appeared unlikely on Tuesday despite two days of negotiations between a Pakistani team of officials and Taleban officials, the US would be compelled to launch operations against that country.
Maj Gen (retd) Ashok Mehta, who had commanded troops in the Indian army's bloody fight against separatist Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka in the late '80s, said if at all the US committed ground troops it would be for a 'short swift operation' because of the risks involved.
"These chaps (US troops) are not trained for this kind of frontier warfare. This is a different kind of war. A few people occupying a picket at a height can stop a column of regular troops. The Americans know this and they may prop up (Afghanistan's opposition) Northern Alliance or an international force to fight their war."
The US objective could well be to destroy the terrorist infrastructure, if there are such targets.
"They will be able to obliterate them from the air, though that does not mean you end terrorism or terrorist training camps," Mehta said.
Afghan diplomat Ahmad Ahmadi, however, feels the US operations had a better chance of success than that of the erstwhile Soviet Union because the Pakistanis, who are a significant component of the Taleban forces, could provide accurate information about the ground situation and terrorist hideouts.
Ahmadi, who represents the ousted government of Burhanuddin Rabbani, which India continues to recognise, said 40 to 45 per cent of the Taleban forces of 20,000-25,000 consisted of Pakistani soldiers and mercenaries from various Arab countries.
But he warned the attack on Afghanistan would not solve the problem of terrorism. "They have to go to the root of the problem. The Taleban came to Kabul from Pakistan. We have been saying this all along. If you want to kill the snake, you have to chop off the head."
Strategic analyst Subhash Kapila said: "Inserting troops is all right, but the question is how far the Pakistanis would cooperate (with the US). They are playing a duplicitous game and the US may well get bogged down in Afghanistan."
Indo-Asian News Service
The Attack on America: The Complete Coverage
Back to top
Tell us what you think of this report
