One of the early contentions in this thread was the premise that war is war. I wonder if we ought to be making security in Afghanistan, not war. Why?

Armies can make war in the classic sense - but what about making security? What role should we play in crisis management, building police, judiciary, prisons, a sense of security - not for ourselves in FOBs but for locals in village and mud hut. IMO these must be done in tandem with the kinetic action - no point in capturing Taliban if there is no system by which to arrest, try and imprison and vitally rehabilitate him - there isn't a day when the war ends and this process starts.

Yet security is deeply embedded in the 'minds' aspect of COIN - for both the local population [Reassure] and the insurgent [Deter to Prevent]. Death cannot be the only outcome of military intervention. Yet prisons, police and judiciary are the domain of the civilian component, key pillars of societal security. Making security must be a coherent and concurrent strategy alongside kinetic activity.

To illustrate this I've got an 'arty farty' quote from the play "A Man For All Seasons":

'William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!'

My point being if we kick every door down to get at the Taliban (and most of those doors belong to locals), and do get our man, what use is it if we turn round and there is nothing to hand him to, if we have failed to create the security, in doing so failing to win the 'minds' of the local, are we not ultimately failing, simply creating a tactical gain but underpinning operational failure and ultimately strategic stalemate?

Apologies again for brief amateur foray into high literature - I'm going to lie down now....