You think more troops on the ground in Afghanistan will lead to fewer deaths of civilians?
Should I spell it out in far greater detail?
Instead of relying on Special Forces units, with consequent problems, Afghanistan should have been done properly. Massive occupation and proper policing.
It certainly would mean less reliance on airpower with consequent targeting problems. Guess why the British military are being so vocal?
eta: And how many "boots on the ground" did it take for the USSR to pacify the place?
Tell me, while I like one-liners, what is the relevance of your remark? If you think Afghanistan is unwinnable, then you should be saying there should have been an immediate pull-out after toppling the Taliban.
BTW, the USSR relied a good deal on airpower.
___________________
You might find BeAChooser chiming in here pretty soon.
I prefer Shanek. Shanek makes more sense and is far less longwinded.
It is curious to see the Spec Ops guys taking a facial, as four years ago
History is frequently ironical.
The disagreement between ISAF and the CJTF, regarding RoE and other tactical decision making, goes back to the beginning of the Operations in Afghanistan, and the stand up of ISAF. Typical Coalition Warfare friction. This report is nothing unusual in that regard, and as I see it a tempest in a tea pot.
I disagree (OK, OK, the Pope is a Catholic too).
Afghanistan from an occupation viewpoint is largely a NATO effort; from a vicious-fighting viewpoint, it's largely a Brit effort.
There is a huge amount of open pessimism and alarm coming from all layers of British forces in Afghanistan at this time, including from the very very top levels of command, to the effect that the war in Afghanistan is being lost, and lost badly.
The other problem is that this officer is speaking from within his own stovepipe. He sees the world through his own lens, which colors his views, and from his mission and how well he feels he can accomplish it.
Beg to differ again. This is far more than one officer shooting his mouth off.
__________________
I dunno, foot in mouth disease didn't hurt Bush too much. To the extent that this is a flub on Obama's part is a tempest in a teapot.
I don't think it's a flub.
It's difficult to determine if more boots on the ground would lead to fewer civilian deaths. In the short term, at least, I can see increased civilian deaths, as fighting may escalate. Ideally in the long term, I suppose the goal of such a policy would be that lives of Afghanistanis will be better as a result.
Well, I guess we all hope the lives of Afghanis will be better off as a result, especially the Afghanis themselves. I wish to hell the war in Afghanistan at least had succeeded. The outlook looks very grim at the moment.
I won't bother with links and stuff; there is enough stuff on the BBC and The Guardian for those who want to look, and I hear direct from a few of those in the Brit force too. It depresses me.
Then again, foreign plans for the the region rarely seem to pan out as planned.
Elphinstone, Elphinstone, give me back my 3 eagles.
