Perhaps, but fewer enemies than invasion and occupation of entire countries. Cheaper and more effective, too.
I wasn't suggesting anything. I was agreeing with the policy but without cheering and waving the flag. I think he's doing the right thing the best he can, but when we miss we give comfort and aid to the terrorists.
I agree. And 10 years from now after all the deaths and the debt Afghanistan may not be very different from what it would have been if we hadn't invaded. We did kill a lot of bad people. But our efforts to transform the society may fade quickly once we leave.
You're right, it was a bad post. When I read it the next day I didn't like the way it read. No disrespect intended. My blood sugar and blood alcohol numbers might have passed each other going in the wrong directions.
We may be coming to a point in history where we need to find a new way to fight our enemies. Invasions don't work for us in our recent conflicts because the opposition waits us out and then pops back up when we leave and the country reverts back to what it was. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan; in the end what will change? What was the last invasion to work - Grenada? Drone strikes cut off the snake's head, but he keeps growing another. And the collateral damage helps them recruit more snakes. It just doesn't have the feel of a long term solution. At some point we are going to stop dropping surprise bombs out of the sky on targets. Either because we grow tired of doing it, or because we screw one up so bad we have to stop. We need a new plan. A combination of things that coordinated together are more involved than a surgical strike but less overwhelming than a massive invasion.
Isn't it kind of like the drug war though Red? No end in sight, nor will there ever be, and you stamp out 1 terrorist 20 more pop up. With all the money we shell out annualy on defense, couldn't we just buy all these fuckers off?
I think it is a given. Afghan tribes have been fighting each other for thousands of years. The only time that they stop is to band together to fight foreign invaders . . . Alexander the Great, Persia, The British Empire, The Soviet Union and now NATO. I don't think we are hanging around to try to turn Afghanistan into a democracy. We are hanging around to keep our drone bases for the fight in Pakistan. It would be nice if Afghanistan turned out the Taliban and became Western friendly, but it ain't going to happen. The Taliban will probably win out. Our best bet is just let them start fighting each other again and assure them that is they allow Al Qaeda to base themselves there, the B-52's will return. Perhaps they will see that their best interests are in keeping out all foreigners. The Taliban is mostly Pakistanis and Al Qaeda is mostly Saudi Arabs.
Happens to the best of us. Debates can get heated in FSA. martin may have been the only serious debater here that almost never lost his temper. Of course, he acted out in other ways.
I think it is happening, but drone strikes and airpower in general will continue to be part of it. But we have finally learned that invasion and occupation usually turns into a guerrilla war. We lose all of our military advantages when we get into a knife fight on the enemy's terms. Holding territory is not important in a guerrilla war, only killing the enemy. So we take advantage of our technology and logistics to hit them hard anywhere in the world and frustrate them because they cannot fight back. We use more Special Ops forces to beat them at their own game. We use the NSA to use their own communications against them and we go after the sources of money, which has helped cripple Al Qaeda. The more we focus on the terrorists cells instead of entire countries and entire religions, the less we inflame passions in the region and create more enemies.
