View Single Post
Oct3-08, 07:58 PM
P: 1,511
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
Well, the crux of the matter at hand is that the US and other nations (NATO) have committed armed forces to Afghanistan now - rightly or wrongly - and they're going to stay - probably until it gets too expensive to do so. The US and NATO are there at the behest of the Afghani government.
The Russians were there also at the behest of the then Afghan gov't so I'm not sure how much genuine legitimacy this bestows.

Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
At the moment the Bush administration is trying to get bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri.
I'd like to think the Bush administration has been trying to capture Bin Laden since Sept 12th 2001.

Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
At the moment, the US is trying to locate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders/groups close to the border with Afghanistan, and attack them. The US is trying to encourage Paksitan's ISI to do the same. There are some conflicts therein.
During the first world war snipers always aimed at officers first, to the extent both Britain and Germany complained at a very high level about each other's practices.

Despite tremendous success in wiping out each other's officer corp on a near daily basis it made not an iota of difference to the war itself. New officers were appointed and the war went on.

The same is now true today. The only good thing that comes out of killing Taliban leaders is the bragging rights in the paper the next day. In terms of defeating the enemy it is meaningless.