You have Mullah Omar on the drone's downlink feed...

[Tukhachevskii]

Violence is a form of communication. I would let rip and unleash the hellfire of war. Why? Simple. Does it degrade the capability of the Taliban? No. But it sends a message to anyone who wants to step into his shoes. "This is what you get when you mess with us". In terms of strategic communication it is simple and to the point. Certain actions have certain consequences. Tow the line, cooperate or face the consequences. There's too little of that kind of targeted suasion. Used properly, I.e. In the context of other shaping actions across DIME this sort of action is valuable. Done the American way...maybe not

[ganulv]

Violence is a form of communication. I would let rip and unleash the hellfire of war. Why? Simple. Does it degrade the capability of the Taliban? No. But it sends a message to anyone who wants to step into his shoes. "This is what you get when you mess with us". In terms of strategic communication it is simple and to the point. Certain actions have certain consequences. Tow the line, cooperate or face the consequences. There's too little of that kind of targeted suasion. Used properly, I.e. In the context of other shaping actions across DIME this sort of action is valuable.

Wasn’t that the Soviet take on things?

[Tukhachevskii]

Wasn’t that the Soviet take on things?

Perhaps, minus the DIME. There is a great deal of similarity between the soviet experience and ours in Afghanistan. That is because war has a grammar all it's own regardless of the character or constitution of the entities in question. I was actually thinking of Schelling when I wrote that. The logic of violence can and should be used properly. Unfortunately I find that most drone strikes seem to be tactical actions devoid of strategic effects. Just hitting them isn't enough. We need to have a narrative within which that action makes sense to BOTH parties.

[omarali50]

Well, as an American strategist, that would depends on the aims and strategy of the US involvement in Afghanistan. Which aim is unknown or unclear to most of us, so I cannot say what the appropriate decision is from an "American insider" point of view.
From my POV (as someone who desires a peaceful South Asia with secular or near-secular democratic states with EU-like borders; and who would like to see the Taliban and their "confrontation-conquest-Paknationalist-Jihadist faction" mentors brought under adult supervision), its a no-brainer. You pull the trigger.

[carl]

Well, as an American strategist, that would depends on the aims and strategy of the US involvement in Afghanistan. Which aim is unknown or unclear to most of us, so I cannot say what the appropriate decision is from an "American insider" point of view.

Omar, you do have a way with words. I see a bright future for you as a satirist.

[carl]

Violence is a form of communication. I would let rip and unleash the hellfire of war. Why? Simple. Does it degrade the capability of the Taliban? No. But it sends a message to anyone who wants to step into his shoes. "This is what you get when you mess with us". In terms of strategic communication it is simple and to the point. Certain actions have certain consequences. Tow the line, cooperate or face the consequences. There's too little of that kind of targeted suasion. Used properly, I.e. In the context of other shaping actions across DIME this sort of action is valuable. Done the American way...maybe not

Absolutely! You want to fight us? Fine. We see you, we kill you.

Boy are you right about the new American way, "Well maybe, but maybe not, but what if something goes wrong, well let me think about it, but what if something goes wrong..." is not working out well.