Just to get some context I would refresh myself by saying that the reason for the military effort in Afghanistan is to prevent it being used (again) as a springboard for aggressive (terrorist) action against the west. A secondary aim would be to destroy the heroin industry while there.
Funny how things change. We now seem to want to make a western style democracy out of Afghanistan and the aim seems more to build schools for Afghan girls than to defeat the Taliban or destroy the poppy production. Absolute madness.
The first principle of war I learned was "Selection and maintenance of the aim".
How do we achieve the original aims?
In 2001 it took two months to dislodge the Taliban government with the help of the Northern Alliance.
The aim must surely be maintained. No springboard for terror and no production of heroin.
Now that is a lot more simple than we are making of it now (when did schools for girls get added to the list?).
We just need to let the current (and any future) regime know that like in 2001 it took just two months to unseat the government in a relatively simple low risk bombing campaign. The Afghan tribal culture is so basic that with a brief case full of dollars any tribal chief will switch sides in an instant (probably sell his own mother too). Can't be trusted.
So in the meantime we need forces on the ground to defeat the Taliban insurgency.
Large scale ops by the US seem to have some albeit temporary effect. Bit like putting your hand into a bucket of water, when you withdraw it, all returns to how it was.
So there is a void that needs to be filled once ISAF forces move on. Who will that be? Afghan army? That's a joke right?
So we need a "third force" to fill the gap... and of course this force would have no rules of engagement (or at least nothing lijke those of ISAF).
Mike if we are on the same page we can pursue this line of thinking.
Bookmarks