Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
As I understand the Taliban (and I am no expert, so this is intended to be a very general assessment) they are essentially a Pashto nationalist movement that is made up largely of members of the the Pashto populace living on both sides of the Afg/Pak border; that employ a fundamentalist Islamic ideology to provide the motivation for their movement.

I really see no way one can attack members of the Pashto populace that associate with the Taliban without having extremely negative effects with the larger Pashto populace from which these men originate. The tribe may well agree with the cause the Americans are supporting, yet as we have killed their kin, and likely non-Taliban members of the tribe as well in collateral damage, we have alienated the tribe as a whole. The more we engage, the stronger the Taliban become, not because more buy into their ideology, but because more are either sucked into the blood feud, or simply agree that the outsiders must be driven out.
Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
No one is talking about attacking the populace. No one is talking about killing the Non-Taliban. That is exactly what we will avoid doing. We are talking about only killing the people who are killing other people.
Basically, you suggest taking no action against the Taliban because the people they are trying to kill will hate us for trying to kill them? I wonder how do their victims feel about this?
Interesting discussion, and probably one that gets the heart of the matter.

I recall something similar with Iraq that Bing West discussed - American soldiers and their presence were assumed to have brought violence with insurgents which only led to escalation. Thus the solution was to keep, as much as possible, US soldiers away from Iraqis. US forces keep to the COPs with some patrolling, things spiral out of control, a new strategy with a "surge" and soldiers reassert their presence, and now things are much better (relative to before). Is it due to the increased activities of soldier amongst the populace or is it simply a matter of a society becoming exhausted by its own internal conflict? I don't know.

It can pretty much be assumed that the presence of a Western soldier in Afghanistan will trigger some sort of violent outcome with insurgents (and the locals as onlookers caught in the middle). Is this a bad thing or a good thing?

Bob's World discussed Pashtun tribalism - how does this, which at times seems to approach the ideal of the "Noble Savage", compete with a more base human instinct? How do these "culture specific" forces (ie: "You killed my cousin, thus I am honour bound to kill you!") play against a more general human force (ie: "I want to have grandkids")? I often try to imagine a situation going on in my own neighbourhood, bearing in mind that it will be slewed, to an extent, by my neighbourhood's own cultural perceptions:

1. I'm not going to appreciate rabble rousers in the neighbourhood and I am definitely not going to like armed foreigners. Whom do I dislike more?

2. I'm not going to want rabble rousers killed in the neighbourhood but I really don't want them pushing my family and friends around. Which will I tolerate less?

3. I'm really not going to be happy if my friends or relatives are killed as a result of armed foreigners but at the same time getting more killed really doesn't support a better future for my kids. Which action do I choose?

What makes sense - I dunno? But this argument seems to be a part of process informing COMISAF's new policy.