You have Mullah Omar on the drone's downlink feed...

[carl]

I concur. Unless the classified information regarding MO greatly exceeds the publicly available information, how would it be clear that he ends up dead?

Stipulate that he ends up dead. What do you do?

[ganulv]

Stipulate that he ends up dead. What do you do?

If there are active negotiations, I let the moment slip. As soon as his death is confirmed the Taliban are going to back away from the table for the forseeable future. The positives of having the Taliban at the table would seem to me to outweigh the positives of putting MO in the ground.

[carl]

If there are active negotiations, I let the moment slip. As soon as his death is confirmed the Taliban are going to back away from the table for the forseeable future. The positives of having the Taliban at the table would seem to me to outweigh the positives of putting MO in the ground.

It is today. There are no negotiations occurring today. What do you do today?

[ganulv]

It is today. There are no negotiations occurring today. What do you do today?

Unlike you, I am not certain that factionalization of the Taliban would be good for anyone. The Taliban rose to power because of chaos. So if I have intel leading me to believe that the killing of MO would lead to increased factionalization of the Taliban, I let the moment slip.

If I have intel leading me to believe that there will be an orderly succession and that the next guy would be preferable (define ‘preferable’ as you will), I would have him killed. If I have intel leading me to believe that there will be an orderly succession and that the next guy would be worse (define ‘worse’ as you will), I let the moment slip.

Please don’t replace my above ifs with certainties and ask me what I would do, Carl. I understand that you would kill him.

[carl]

Unlike you, I am not certain that factionalization of the Taliban would be good for anyone. The Taliban rose to power because of chaos. So if I have intel leading me to believe that the killing of MO would lead to increased factionalization of the Taliban, I let the moment slip.

If I have intel leading me to believe that there will be an orderly succession and that the next guy would be preferable (define ‘preferable’ as you will), I would have him killed. If I have intel leading me to believe that there will be an orderly succession and that the next guy would be worse (define ‘worse’ as you will), I let the moment slip.

Please don’t replace my above ifs with certainties and ask me what I would do, Carl. I understand that you would kill him.

Fair enough that you think Taliban & Co breaking up some wouldn't be good. And the Taliban rose to power partly because of chaos. But the situation is different now. There is an extant government in Afghanistan that, for all its faults, that gives an alternative to Taliban & Co., especially for people who don't toe the Taliban line. In the past it was chaos or the Taliban to a large extent. It isn't like that now. So if Taliban & Co were to break up, it would make the current gov relatively stronger, which is good for us.

When you use the phrase "If I have intel...", it seems to me you are saying "If I am fairly certain...". I don't think we can have that. Our human intelligence in this realm seems hopelessly inadequate. Taliban & Co and the ISI run rings around us. It has been my observation that open sources over the years are as good as anything. In this particular scenario, I figure you go with what you got. So to me, MO will never negotiate. Why should a guy who wore the cloak of the prophet and is winning negotiate? It is more likely negotiations would get going with some of Taliban & Co at least if he were gone.

I apologize for my delivery. It was heavy handed.

[Tukhachevskii]

Violence is a form of communication. I would let rip and unleash the hellfire of war. Why? Simple. Does it degrade the capability of the Taliban? No. But it sends a message to anyone who wants to step into his shoes. "This is what you get when you mess with us". In terms of strategic communication it is simple and to the point. Certain actions have certain consequences. Tow the line, cooperate or face the consequences. There's too little of that kind of targeted suasion. Used properly, I.e. In the context of other shaping actions across DIME this sort of action is valuable. Done the American way...maybe not

[ganulv]

Violence is a form of communication. I would let rip and unleash the hellfire of war. Why? Simple. Does it degrade the capability of the Taliban? No. But it sends a message to anyone who wants to step into his shoes. "This is what you get when you mess with us". In terms of strategic communication it is simple and to the point. Certain actions have certain consequences. Tow the line, cooperate or face the consequences. There's too little of that kind of targeted suasion. Used properly, I.e. In the context of other shaping actions across DIME this sort of action is valuable.

Wasn’t that the Soviet take on things?

[Tukhachevskii]

Wasn’t that the Soviet take on things?

Perhaps, minus the DIME. There is a great deal of similarity between the soviet experience and ours in Afghanistan. That is because war has a grammar all it's own regardless of the character or constitution of the entities in question. I was actually thinking of Schelling when I wrote that. The logic of violence can and should be used properly. Unfortunately I find that most drone strikes seem to be tactical actions devoid of strategic effects. Just hitting them isn't enough. We need to have a narrative within which that action makes sense to BOTH parties.

[omarali50]

Well, as an American strategist, that would depends on the aims and strategy of the US involvement in Afghanistan. Which aim is unknown or unclear to most of us, so I cannot say what the appropriate decision is from an "American insider" point of view.
From my POV (as someone who desires a peaceful South Asia with secular or near-secular democratic states with EU-like borders; and who would like to see the Taliban and their "confrontation-conquest-Paknationalist-Jihadist faction" mentors brought under adult supervision), its a no-brainer. You pull the trigger.

[carl]

Violence is a form of communication. I would let rip and unleash the hellfire of war. Why? Simple. Does it degrade the capability of the Taliban? No. But it sends a message to anyone who wants to step into his shoes. "This is what you get when you mess with us". In terms of strategic communication it is simple and to the point. Certain actions have certain consequences. Tow the line, cooperate or face the consequences. There's too little of that kind of targeted suasion. Used properly, I.e. In the context of other shaping actions across DIME this sort of action is valuable. Done the American way...maybe not

Absolutely! You want to fight us? Fine. We see you, we kill you.

Boy are you right about the new American way, "Well maybe, but maybe not, but what if something goes wrong, well let me think about it, but what if something goes wrong..." is not working out well.