That kind of threat works when people fear you. But when you have to run away from the battlefield after a decade of losing the War, not so much.
So the US is too indiscriminate with the drones, but too eager to avoid civilian casualties to be "feared." But the thing is, when the US is gone, sure, Mullah Omar and the new Mullah Omars can stay in hiding forever if they want. I think they will be plenty scared enough now about any new 911s.
Who said they were too eager to avoid civilian casualties to be feared? I'm saying that threats work from a position of strength. In case you hadn't noticed, ISAF and US forces aren't in that position when it comes to Afghanistan.
I don't understand how the threat of a bombing campaign after an exit isn't credible or feared because of a guerrilla campaign that can't be eradicated because of a safe haven across the border.
The "guerrilla campaign" can't be suppressed because a large proportion of the people prefer it to the current governance under the auspices of ISAF/US/Karzai, and in order to hold the area against the people you need around half a million men. You are already doing the bombing, and the people still fight you, so such threats aren't really of any consequence. It sounds macho, sure, but it's not really credible.
Funny but very seldom will the taliban actually come out and fight the US forces, they prefer instead to hide in caves and send out suicide bombers. And when they do come out to fight, they end up on the wrong side of the ass kicking.
It would be very interesting to see what would happen if the gloves came off and the US Armed Forces actually were allowed to fight to their fullest capacity instead of being overly worried about who they might cause offence to.
That doesn't make any sense. The Taliban can hide in Pakistan and within the populace, but when they come out and try to govern, or fight to hold territory, they are completely defenseless against air power, which can be given in support of any anti-Taliban faction, or just used punitively. After the US and multinational forces leave, they can destroy any hostile government through air power at will.
Well the problem is this is how the taliban prefer to fight: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...aing-grid7|netscape|dl1|sec3_lnk1&pLid=167704 I haven't found any credible source yet to say that the majority of people in afghanistan want the taliban back in power.
I didn't "forget" I chose not to include the liar. And as we have already seen in posts today following islamic law isn't really all that important to the taliban now is it? Bombing innocents and then sending in a suicide bomber mins later to kill those trying to help.....And this isn't the first time the taliban have poisoned girls going to school. Or thrown acid on them, or killed them outright now is it? http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...-hospitalized-second-time-week-190135368.html Can't have them women educated, then they would see through the bullshit the taliban offer. I am curious, why are the taliban men so scared of women? They and wahabists want women covered up so no one can see them, they don't want them educated, yet they want 3 or more wives?
I think that the US is making its response policy very clear right now, and are not willing to engage in a withdraw/suffer another attack/then retaliate process.
Well yes. That is naturally what deterrence is about, though if that doctrine or principle applies to those cave-monkeys, is another question. Which is why I said if their leader dies, another one is gonna step up the plate. So best strategy would be to use extra resources to boost your own homeland security. If relations between Iran and USA werent so f*cked up, they could have been great partners in combating these groups. Like during the Khatami administration where Iran gave tremendous amount help and of support to the US, in the war against the taliban. Al-Qaeda is higher up on the shit-list.
Well, with the exception of the suicide bomber, that was Washington’s strategy for most of the American Civil war, smart strategy because the English Army was superior to the American Army, when facing an enemy with superior force, guerrilla tactics are the best option. If I were the Taliban (a crazy religious fuck) I would do the same I would even tell my soldiers to hide with women and children since a hell missile would create bad PR for the Coalition forces. Enemy of my enemy type of shit, then again that backfired on us when we aided the Afghans against the Russians.
If our soldiers share your mindset in large numbers, not only is it not surprising that we (speaking of America) are not doing well in Afghanistan, we also deserve to lose.
Sorry, I dont have much sympathy for the Wahabis. Though it does not mean I agree with the drone strikes because they are also killing civilians, and I dont think it is a good strategy or it makes America any safer.
The sort of pejorative you used is normally used by people who want to put down a nationality or race as a whole & I don't have much sympathy for racists.
What does that have to do with the Taliban, who are mainly deobandis? The salafis don't make up much if any of the Afghan populace.
I was not talking about any race, Im sorry if you got that impression. Maybe I should have been more careful with my wording or more specific. I would be the last person to be a racist, as I think racism is not only wrong but backwards and primitive. If I was a racist I dont think I would bother mentioning the loss of civilian life in the drone strikes. But I did.
In all your posts I would NEVER get the impression of you being racist. I happened to understand your meaning with the comment made earlier and while crude it does hit upon a point concerning the people who are living in caves killing anyone not willing to follow or support their cause. These are people whom I hold in the lowest possible regard and frankly do not care about how they live so long as it is a short life. Intolerable scum like them are simply not needed in the world, and that applies to any group anywhere on Earth who can't for want or reason live with others who don't abide by their creed.
To steal the "living in a cave" concept and apply it in a more... allegorically Platonic direction, the answer to your question is: