Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
Fuch's description of "defeat" as a psychological condition that comes long before total destruction is correct (I see some of Storr's arguments here) and I don't think anyone disagrees with that either.
What's worse; you don't need to defeat the hostile forces in war. It suffices to defeat their government.

There's no way how this could be reconcilable with Wilf's crusade against any type of 'indirect approach'.
Except that he's funnily advocating an indirect approach himself by addressing the enemy leadership (and their might in form of followers) through killing instead of addressing them or their policy directly. (No, killing them does not address them, for their successor will still be determined, and careful. To exploit their fears such as possible loss of power or fear for their people would 'address them'.)




I've got no problem with Wilf, knowing him for the better part of the last decade, but I have a problem with his theoretical arguments (crusades) of the last two years.

The sanctuary issue is a proper topic for this; I doubt that anything would be gained by closing down the sanctuaries or even by killing even most or all enemies in there.
We would only drive the others deeper into the underground, at great costs for us. We're better off if we stay away from them. The AQ in Pakistan is no problem for us and the TB don't seem to be interested in major extra-regional activities.
In fact, the sanctuaries are helping us much; our intelligence services would probably petition against a crackdown because it's so damn useful to observe which young people visit Pakistan these days.
A global network without at least one special central node would be much more difficult to keep under surveillance - especially if their connections break down to their motivation and ideology.


This is a hydra type of conflict anyway. Hack & slash against these enemies won't work.
We can turn some of them into irrelevant enemies simply by avoiding their neighbourhood and we need first and foremost a torch against the others - a sword alone won't do, no matter how much we try. Finally, we should question the whole stupid conflict (the mission) before we do anything.

I suggest to search a more global political torch than the rather regional H&M approach that was way too much insurgency-specific and wouldn't have been decisive in the greater picture even if successful in AFG..