Given the mercenary nature of the TB I am surprised that they to not go after soft targets such as these convoys as there must be much looting potential.
But on this particular topic I got the sense from Jon's post that he felt that the mujahadeen were superior to today's TB. I was hoped he would explain that.
It seems that the H-word (helicopter) must not be mentioned when it comes to Afghanistan. It seems the options are either driving or walking but never a word of flying. Why?JMA; avoiding IEDs won't help much either on the strategic level. De-valueing this tool in the TB's repertoire would merely push them to emphasis what's left of their repertoire; that would be attacks on ANA/ANP/officials plus mafia-like subversion, the maintenance of a parallel state.
The Western missions would drag on and on and on ... because nobody has the balls to make a step back and lure the TB out into the open and defeat them once they become cocky enough to be defeated.
Instead everybody is fixated on reducing the TB's options more and more and more in pursuit of - what exactly? You cannot defeat someone who doesn't dare to fight you any more. That exact situation is no victory either, for the enemy has still other options.
Is the problem not that the ANA/ANP are so damn useless that the areas pacified by the ISAF troops will never totally secured? So what exactly is the point of all this military action under these circumstances?
Back to the point. The troops should be going after the TB. If the "black army" can locate and kill TB leadership then the logical next step is to kill the rank and file as well?
Bookmarks