CDN Aviator said:
The what ? After we leave, what happens ?
Well having seen the light (see what I did there?) they join NATO and rebuild their country into a beautiful paradise.
Do we want to force people into and garrison Afghanistan for ever or do we convince them that our way is better so we can have a stable-ish country that doesn't need 200 rotos of Canadians ?
How are we doing on convincing them that our way is better so far? If winning their hearts and minds worked I'd be all for it. It's not working.
We can;
-Leave now, have our local allies butchered and wait for them to start trying to get some pay back.
-Garrison them like the Russians and feed men money and material into that grinder until they assimilate into something we want OR make it so costly for us we revert to option #1
-Keep pouring men money and material into the hearts and minds thing we got going on which hasn't been all that successful yet.
-Work out a deal with the Taliban which puts them in power and we try and put a spin on it to make it look like we're all friends again.
I don't have a right answer. What about you CDN Aviator, what do YOU think we should do?
Go back and read my post on the four issues in Afghanistan - nowhere was "conflict with Christianity" or "global Caliphate" on that list. Again, you are confusing the Taliban and current Afghan resistance with transnational Salafist terrorism. Two completely different groups/concepts/motives/phenomenon. Blaming the Afghan insurgency on "western religion" and "freedom" is a shallow cop out when in reality, foreign military presence and conflict with the central government is the real fuel to the fire. All insurgency is local.
It may not be on your list but I think it's definitely an issue.
We're the big bad western christian infidels. I'd blame the insurgency on us being in their country AND them believing our lifestyle is an affront to their religion and we should die for it. When you say the insurgency is local do you mean to that region including Pakistan?
The reference to bombing Germany flat is no good either. The bombing of Germany was done to attack their wartime production and the willpower of the people to support its government. In Afghanistan, we've knocked off the regime and are now de facto occupiers on behalf of the client government. There is no wartime production and no regime support to attack with such tactics.
The client government (and police and army) being where some of the dudes from the old regime are hiding out- but ya I see where you're going with that.
Sythen said:
Just an anecdote which I can't back up with any real proof, so you will just need to take my word. While in Afghanistan, the insurgents always hit us from certain areas.. One particular attack on the COP killed two ANA soldiers. The next day we went to the elder of that town, and the ANA commander told him that if we were attacked from his town again he would kill the elder and his whole family. We never got hit from there again.
We can threaten anyone all we want, the locals know we won't do anything except throw money at them. The ANA however had nothing against killing the locals and the elder knew it. Maybe if we weren't seen as pussies and put our foot down now and then, things would change.
No one likes to admit that that tactic can work.