How to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan / Pakistan (and win the war on terror)

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

The thing is, the US and western allies weren't in there, in Afghanistan, but 9/11 happened and that's where Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda had based themselves and that's why they invaded, to get those who did 9/11.

Pardon me,

are you insulting ATS members. I hope its just ignorance.

They might not have been on the ground but a massive force was being prepped in the Indian ocean prior to 9/11.

the Taliban were prepared to hand over Bin Laden if the US could prove their allegations,

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

A lot of people don't like the slogan "war on terror". I like it because it makes clear that we are making war on the terrorists and those states which sponsor terrorists and we are not waging war on the peaceful people of any country.

Wait, so there are no innocent people in the Middle East?

My plan is not to win a "war on half-the-world" but to win the "war on terror". My plan is a good plan yes because it is a plan to win the war on terrorists who are waging war on us.

Do you know when bombs go off and if some unfortunate innocent citizen is near by they might be terrorized?

Did you know that fighting a war in these modern times involves weapons that go BOOM, that explode?

How is a war on terror ever won when the war itself creates terror?

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

If we bomb their buildings down they will look much less convincing preaching from the top of a pile of rubble.

Sorry what


Yeah much less convincing, they are telling people look at our lands being destroyed by these foreign invaders, hey bombing where they preach these messages will be proof the invading force is here to help

The most effective tool used by zealots to brainwash people to die for them is the satellite TV which we invented,

I would have to say NO,

The most effective tool is the weapons the Allied forces are using to liberate people.

A person will die for these zealots because their family was blown up by a drone strike and any chance they get they will take to fight their own war on terror against the terrorizing allied force invading their country.

You are not describing my plan. If you want to criticise my plan you need to know what it is first. I suggest that you read my plan first because you don't seem to know what I propose. Then when you've read my plan maybe you'll understand that terror groups will be defeated by my plan, not in any way reinforced.

Maybe you need understand human nature a little better then.

Did you not propose dropping bombs or using drones to do strategical strikes?

Sorry but I don't understand how using terror will defeat terror.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

We came to regime-change and rebuild but it is like trying to build a house while your neighbour is trying to burn your new house down as you are building it.

To build a house one must have land, is that not the case?

If you have land and your neighbor does as well, of coarse he will try burning down your house if you try building it on his land.

Look here's a Jordanian jihadi group brainwashing a young lad from their Sunni / Shiite community to go to Iraq and blow himself up as a suicide bomber and kill innocent civilians of the other Shiite / Sunni community

OK just realized you really have no clue,

Carry on

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Oh I think Islam, which means "peace"

No it doesn't. my previous point is being solidified with some of the things you post.

You know who I have in mind for that job, right?

I am thinking this a troll playing games, but why do 10 post OP or whatever it was?

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Communism can terrify you if the secret police are after you for your dissident views. You can defeat communism with openness, economic liberalisation and democracy though defeating the secret police, the worst feature of communism, is more difficult because secret police don't really have any ideas they care about other than they are always really in charge behind the scenes no matter who thinks they are the elected president. But secret police can be defeated by being shot out of hand by freedom fighters who just dish out to the secret police a taste of their own medicine.

WTF




What do Secret police have to do communism? Do you know what communism is?

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Sorry but someone has to fight our enemies if we are to stay safe.

Enemies are created through and for fighting, how is fighting not going create more enemies?

You can kill them all, but are you going to kill their children as well?

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

I think it is more important to arrest or kill the right people, especially the enemy leaders if you can identify them and allow for friendly leaders to take power.

Kill the right people.


Who decides right and wrong?


Do you think the US is GOD or something, judging who is wrong and right who lives or dies...


this has to be joke,

reply to post by poet1b

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

The only pratical way to end the suffering in Afghanistan/Pakistan is to herd the taliban and ANY one who wish to revert to 7th century life to stay pure to that stage of Islam - into an enclosed bordered parcel of land SEALED with high walls and electrifying fence so that NONE may enter or leave after once it is sealed.

The Taliban are actually only previous nomads of those tribal areas, and its leaders see the juggarnaut of change and progress a threat to their way of dominating others and their lives, and very less so adherence to Islam, or they would not have carried out the carnage they had done.

This is only what they want.

So give it them. Let time stand still for them and every regressive nutjob on our planet who are not willing to share our world in peace, by giving them full control on how they wish to rot and die in regression - behind a sealed compound and undisturbed, where no progress, trade and evolution will touch them.

Those in the tribal areas whom do not share those ideals with the Taliban, espacially women and children, will be allowed to leave that compound and start a new life within a modern and democratic Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As the area may be big, building those fences and walls may cost a bomb, but then it is better than being bombed by them. Money can always be earned back, but when lives are lost, it is forever.

There are rich mineral resources outside of that proposed compound, and can be extracted to finance those structures. There will be resources inside the compound too, but it is not worth the bloodshed spilt. Once sealed,the taliban can dominate whomever is willing to live with them under their control.

Any other radical militant or cleric who continues misuing Islam to hurt and harm humans will equally be thrown over the walls into the taliban compound, to live the pure fundamental theology of the 7th century that they want to imposed upon mankind.

And with that, may the 7th century lovin idiots enjoy their 'paradise' there, undisturbed.

edit on 21-4-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)

Thanks. It's a win-win situation for all, with less bloodshed, IF, and a big IF, the Taliban will talk, unless they are foolish enough to think that they can kill everyone in Pakistan and Afganistan to conquer them, take over those lands, and rule effectively, let alone thinking of conquering our world and imposing their fundamentalist beliefs that even true muslims rejects.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

I haven't yet seen all you have written, just did a quick look

I get that a lot.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
I disagree with the point regarding peace talks as a show of weakness and lack of resolve

Well let's come to that disagreement in my next post.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
and fully agree and even starred the corruption across the supply chain.

I don't get my posts starred a lot so thanks but my one post you starred only really introduced the supply chain problem.

So you are "fully agreeing" with Representative Tierney, his Congressional "WARLORD, INC" report, CBS News and whole load of Americans who watched that news story.

So "fully agreeing" with what a mass of people who watch TV already now agree with is OK, you know, but it's not really taking full advantage of the rest of my OP where I propose solutions to the supply chain problems in a further 10 or more posts after my post which you starred.

It would be a whole lot more to the point of my OP if you had gone on to read all of my proposed solution and either fully agreed with my proposals or partially agreed or fully disagreed, and explained why you came to your opinion about what I actually have authored and presented here.

You know, that's what the internet is great for - exchanging new ideas, discussing them. Whereas if you just turn up in a forum and say you agree with what was on TV - well it's a start I suppose but not much more than that.

In other words, I can't be fully agreed with by someone who has not read my OP in full all the way to the top of page 2. My OP presents new ideas and those are not already on TV and if you read my posts then you can agree or disagree with my ideas but if you've not read my posts then just hold your horses before you go claiming to agree (or disagree) with me fully, OK?

Originally posted by Panic2k11
I have seen a very descriptive video documentary that covers that subject,

Oh really? Is it to do with the supply chain or is it to do with what you wrote in your next sentence which actually has nothing to do with the supply chain at all?

Originally posted by Panic2k11
America is a corporation whose shareholders are corporations themselves, not people but bean counting psychopathic greedy legal constructs that serve to validate the worst of humanity on a faulty society.

Why interject that off-topic sentence of anti-American hatred?

America's United States has a constitution of "We the people" not "we the corporations" and the USA does not validate the worst of humanity and if you think that it does then maybe you are really on the side of the Taliban in this war and on the side of everyone who wants to see the US's supply chain corrupted?

The opinion of all right-thinking people in the world is that the Taliban are the worst of humanity, not the USA.

You've just blown apart any credibility as regards you claiming to "fully agree" with those of us who appreciate there is a supply chain problem because if you hate America, think it serves "to validate the worst of humanity", whatever, presumably you'd hate to see America's troops in Afghanistan supplied efficiently, you'd want the supply chain to be inefficient and corrupt in order to see America fail in Afghanistan?

Maybe that's why you didn't read my proposed solutions to the supply chain problem? Maybe you are not interested in getting the problem solved?

If you love America and have favourite American leaders, as I do,



then you'd be wanting to help America succeed in Afghanistan by supporting good solutions to the supply chain problems.

So you claiming to "fully agree" with my post and starring my post is not what it first seems. It seems that actually you are being dishonest because nothing in my post implies that America serves to validate the worst of humanity!

So don't pretend to agree with me then insult America and make out that I am in any way in agreement with your insults.

My approach is that of a loyal friend and ally of America and if that isn't your approach then don't say you "fully agree" with me because you can't possibly!

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Oh really? Is it to do with the supply chain or is it to do with what you wrote in your next sentence ...

Are the two things distinct, who supplies and what is supplied and the quality of the supply is part of the supply chain. I did not fallow Representative Tierney "WARLORD, INC" report or CBS News. And my adherence to the position goes to the start of the war, to the problems the US had in lubricating the ex-Soviet border states for "support" and we the informed know the history of Afghanistan...

So you are "fully agreeing" with Representative Tierney, his Congressional "WARLORD, INC" report, CBS News and whole load of Americans who watched that news story. So "fully agreeing" with what a mass of people who watch TV already now agree with is OK

If that is so that it is a good thing to at have it bypass the propaganda noise...

It would be a whole lot more to the point of my OP if you had gone on to read all of my proposed solution and either fully agreed with my proposals or partially agreed or fully disagreed

I explained fully why I didn't give it more of my time.

I do not agree with the underlying premise that peace is a show of weakness, I also do not think that you go into what wining the war against the Taliban means or what winning in Afghanistan entails (you dig a bit on the scab but do not expose all the issues).

I also do not think that the war is winnable or even that there was ever any intention of "winning" it in accordance to the the (mixed message and moving goal posts) what the public is feed as the objectives (I added several of the major ones, that do not get often pointed out as major objectives in the intervention).

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

In the case of the peace talks one needs to consider that war only occurs after all other means fail, the Taliban did interact with the US government before and after 9/11, the invasion of Afghanistan was a collateral of the finger pointing to Osama (I will not get into that here). So the war was really a cover for other interests but mainly the capture of the criminal due to the refusal of the Taliban to play ball. Afghanistan also has other interesting characteristics, it is near Russia, borders several Soviet states, China and Iran. There is also a well established mineral interests in the region as well as a need to curb Pakistan's influence on the region (that was mostly influenced by previous US support). All that allied with the economic benefits any war brings to the US military complex and supply infrastructure was the reasons for its existence, the peace talks is a disengagement strategy to a previously reasonable and stable situation of dialog with the added benefit that some of the previous objectives got satisfied.

So that would be the "previously reasonable and stable situation" when Pakistani's client state of Afghanistan, controlled by their proxies the Taliban, was hosting terrorists who had launched devastating attacks on our homelands?

Stability and the Taliban do not go together. Pakistan did not create the Taliban to establish stability but to prosecute the building of a greater imperial Pakistan, to include Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh and anywhere else they can get their proxy terrorists to seize power.

Peace talks with the Taliban imply the acceptance of an expansionist imperial Pakistan and that is never going to be acceptable to anyone who wants a peaceful world.

The sole route to peace and stability means crushing the Taliban utterly and that also means eliminating Pakistan's imperial expansionist dreams for ever by equally crushing Pakistan's imperialists.

So those fools who advise peace talks with the Taliban are effectively trying to resign the world to accept a Pakistan that will never curb its imperial expansionist activities.

Or if Pakistan quits sponsoring terrorists but if the Taliban get taken over solely by Iran or by Saudi Arabia and used by Iran or Saudi Arabia to expand a new Persian / or Saudi empire, a similar fate for the world awaits - always more terrorism, never peace.

The Taliban must be utterly and finally eliminated, not one Taliban left. All gone. The end.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by poet1b

 

We are not winning the war on terror.

You know what it is like, sport? It's like running out of petrol while driving a long way from nowhere in the Australian outback and you have to try to walk home and you'll probably make it but it's going to be a long hard walk and as you are walking home, sweat pouring off you, you keep telling yourself "I'm winning" but you know that you were an idiot for not taking enough petrol to drive you home in comfort.

It's that kind of "winning" the war on terror we are witnessing - slow, painful but you probably just wish it didn't have to be this way and actually it doesn't have to be this way.

Like on the dusty outback road, some friendly driver luckily may be driving your way and stop to give you a lift on your way, maybe save your life.

Like that, some military genius can come along and present a plan to win the war in terror quickly and in comfort. That's my plan, IMHO.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
If anything, we have become terrorists ourselves through killing innocent people across the Middle East.

We don't target civilians. Terrorists do, we don't.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
With that, we are throwing our support behind known extremists in Syria to the point we could be possibly fighting alongside them soon. How can we deem people terrorists in one country and portray other groups as freedom fighters for doing the exact same thing in another country?

Well we need to insist that the condition of our support for any Syrian group is that any group we support must not do the same thing as terrorists because we won't support them if they do.

Originally posted by DarknStormy
While we are trying to eliminate a generation of extremists from the past, we are building a new generation of extremists while throwing them in power in certain countries also. Libya and their issues across Northern Africa (Mali) is a perfect example. The only thing we are winning is the label "Hypocracy".

The hypocrits in North Africa are the Egyptian dictators like Mubarak who have taken the US's money to "fight terrorism" but spent some of it helping terrorism so as to make a show of later fighting those terrorists they previously helped, to demonstrate their value for money to justify the next billion dollar aid bundle from Uncle Sam.

The US and western allies are dupes of the ace-hypocrite Mubarak and his corrupt cronies.

At least with Gaddafi you always knew he was supporting terrorism. You knew he was your enemy. Not so with the wily Mubarak. He has you fooled.

The hypocrisy of Egypt's dictators - click to see larger image

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

Well, what you accuse Iran of doing is nothing that the USA haven't done in the near past and with that it could be the exact reason why things are the way they are right now. People like you have short memories, if you even understand what I'm talking about in the first place. This war on terror didn't begin after 9/11, it has been waged since the late 40's where Israel were the ones terrorising the Middle East.

When we move forward, we understand that the Mujahadeen were also weaponised and sponsored by the US government back in the 80's to fight against the Russians. Osama Bin Laden was apparently a close business partner of George W. Bush also. Check it out, you will be surprised.

The Iranian problem stems from the Iranian Revolution where an oppressive Western Shah was toppled after a CIA coupe in 1953.. Again, more acts of terrorism which could be brought to the table. After 1979, the US government funded Saddam Hussein and guess what happened? He launched an attack on Persia which would lead to Cyanide and Mustard gas killing innocent Kurds and Iranians. You can call this terrorist bs all you like. The truth is your government and ABC agencies along with the Israeli's have been behind or had some influence in the lot of them.

With that also we have uprisings in what would be called Western aligned Arab nations which are still going on right now. Where is the media on those issues when Saudi and Bahraini soldiers are killing their own people while we fund extremists to topple another leader in Syria who we find distasteful? The war on terror is the biggest load of bs of the modern era.

Actually mate, it is you who has the short memory. I have already discussed some of these issues which your short memory can't even remember from my 2nd post on page 2 of this topic.

Originally posted by Mr Peter Dow

Originally posted by Danbones
trouble is
nato is backing alciaduh

Al Qaeda?

Well NATO is supposed to be fighting Al Qaeda, not backing them.
US leads NATO and in 2011 they killed the Al Qaeda leader Bin Laden, right?

Originally posted by Danbones
and the taliban

NATO was supposed to be fighting the Taliban, not backing them, but now the US is in favour of "peace talks" with the Taliban, though there is still some fighting the Taliban going on I believe. It's not really full "backing" as such, is it?

Originally posted by Danbones
and they use them to destabilize and destroy legitimate governments

Well President Reagan's US administration supported the Mujahideen against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Was the Soviet backed government of Afghanistan, "legitimate"? Many would doubt that.

I suppose you could argue that the Taliban was similar to the Majahideen but the Taliban was supported by Pakistan mostly, not by the US.

If you remember the US invaded Afghanistan to kick the Taliban out of government.

Originally posted by Danbones
( like the way the US installed Pol Pot

This is what Wikipedia says to that idea

Wikipedia: Pol Pot

Kaing Guek Eav has claimed that US support for the Lon Nol coup contributed to the Khmer Rouge's rise to power.[24] However diplomat Timothy M. Carney disagreed, asserting that Pol Pot won the war due to support from Sihanouk, massive supplies of military aid from North Vietnam, government corruption, the cut-off of U.S. air support after Watergate, and the determination of the Cambodian Communists.[25] Despite Sihanouk's claims, there is no evidence of direct American involvement in the coup.

Originally posted by Danbones
and the Shaw

Do you mean "The Shah of Iran"? Oh yes, he was installed via a coup with the help of the CIA/MI6 under Eisenhower and Churchill in 1953 I think it was. That was a very stupid move strategically which really undermined our democratic allies in Iran and put the Islamists in the driving seat of political change which in turn led to the Islamic revolution and all the blowback against Western interests since then. Installing the Shah of Iran must be the dumbest of Western dumb moves in the 20th Century.

Originally posted by Danbones
and Saddam etc )

No Saddam rose to power via being a Iraq Baath party thug.

Originally posted by Danbones
till the US stops installing Terrorists it will never stop

Well the US needs to up its game, fight it anti-terror wars more strategically, more thoughtfully, if it wants to win the war on terror.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ABC" agencies though?

Originally posted by DarknStormy
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

I bet you even think Saddam died all those years ao, don't you? Guess what, have you ever wondered why the USA walked into Iraq so easily? It's called get out of your military gear, dress up like civilians and wage your war.. You haven't won anything and now Saddam's loyalists are waging a war with the Extremists in Iraq. I cannot believe some people these days.. The extremists are not going anywhere and that is a fact.

Well I do know that Saddam Hussein was hung. I remember it well and even produced a music video to mark the victory for freedom.



Well it will be the-mother-of-all-come-backs if Saddam shows up alive and well again but I seriously doubt it.

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

And those are honest typos, but I liked the results.

Those who are peaceful to us we should be peaceful to them.That's the way to win this.

I agree, but this is extremely difficult to do. It is not done on a win or lose situation. We develop strategies, try them out, develop better strategies. It is the way difficult problems are solved.

Forget about win lose, think about what needs to be done next.

But the requirement to protect your supply lines, to expect the enemy to attack and cut long supply lines is classical military strategy.

If there was to be a sustained resistance to our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan then any competent military strategist could have predicted that the enemy would attack our supply lines in Iraq and Afghanistan and if we didn't do the correct thing according to classical military strategy and defend those supply lines then it was inevitable that the enemy would mine and ambush our undefended, or poorly defended supply lines.

Now the US has people who seem to know the importance of this requirement and are raising the issue in publications -

Army Logistician

Supply Line Warfare by Dr. Cliff Welborn

The U.S. military has also disrupted the enemy’s supply chain to weaken its fighting capabilities. When we think of a military supply line, we often think of the logistics considerations necessary to keep our own supply chain flowing. However, just as important to military success are tactics for disrupting the enemy supply line. A defensive strategy is to protect our own supply chain; an offensive strategy is to inhibit the supply chain of our enemy. The United States has used both offensive and defensive strategies in many wars, including the Revolutionary War in the 1770s and 1780s, the Civil War in the 1860s, the Plains Indian Wars in the late 19th century, World War II in the 1940s, and the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s.

but that ancient military knowledge, that must be taught to every officer at a military academy, doesn't seem to be in the brains of the US, British or other NATO generals, who seem to think "patrolling" or "ever bigger MRAPs" is a better plan to try to keep our soldiers safe on otherwise undefended supply routes than simply establishing a secure perimeter around your supply route which is watched 24/7 from static guard posts all along the route, either side of the route, and a mobile reaction force to reinforce wherever and whenever the enemy concentrates to attack the supply route.

Don't get me wrong, big MRAPs have their uses as a back-up if the enemy makes it through the defended perimeter but there does clearly need to be a pretty secure perimeter established there in the first place otherwise your supply routes remain effectively uncleared territory and anything on the route not protected by tons of armour is simply easy meat for the enemy.

OK the rest of my plan, about seizing satellites and who to bomb in Pakistan - that takes a lot of new, specific intelligence for the war on terror and is maybe a bit much to expect on day one from our military.

But to not know the requirement to defend supply routes, and to lead our soldiers to die from enemy road side bombs and ambushes - this is unforgivable ignorance on the part of our generals, defense secretaries and Pentagon, NATO and UK MOD civilian support military "experts".

Those in charge don't know the military basics. It's like donkeys-generals leading brave lion-soldiers to their deaths advancing on foot against machine gun nests as in world war 1 all over again.

It's another famous military disaster and it is no way to win a war (even though we will likely win eventually but at a very high cost in blood and treasure.)

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

Pakistani's client state of Afghanistan, controlled by their proxies the Taliban, was hosting terrorists who had launched devastating attacks on our homelands?

Well I hope that you realize that I as yourself also do not believe in the Tooth fairy and Santa Claus so making claims to their existence is futile and serves only to push those still marooned in a sea of ignorance further under water.

The questions you should focus on resolving the US problem is why is Afghanistan a client state of Pakistan? Why did the US and their proxies that includes the Saudis allowed the Taliban to take over the nation, when I serve dinner I also clear the table.

Now on the issue regarding 9/11 if you still believe in fairy tales we will never come to a common ground, but just consider that the intervention on Afghanistan was sold in a package that included a nation called Iraq.

If you are concerned with stability in the region then

Stability and the Taliban do not go together.

is a false problem, do you wish me to believe that the US cares about the future of Afghanistan (or the region beyond its securtity and economic interests) ?!? How old are you, I assure you I was not born yesterday...

Pakistan did not create the Taliban to establish stability but to prosecute the building of a greater imperial Pakistan, to include Afghanistan, Kashmir, Bangladesh and anywhere else they can get their proxy terrorists to seize power.

Peace talks with the Taliban imply the acceptance of an expansionist imperial Pakistan and that is never going to be acceptable to anyone who wants a peaceful world.

The problem is exactly that and the support that the US gave to that project. The conversations or peace dialog with the Taliban in Afghanistan or even the Afghan government is only a public relations step to permit the open and public disengagement of the US military (I doubt that the US will leave Afghanistan alone, that is in the security and economic aspect). What the US has to deal now is how to clear their own mess on Pakistan and things do not seem to be going well. Pakistan is even starting to turn to China (The plan to resolve the issue in Pakistan, in the interest of US goals, would be to collapse that nation into civil war and that is more or less what is being attempted).

The Taliban must be utterly and finally eliminated, not one Taliban left. All gone. The end.

The Taliban are fanatics and gangsters they have proven in the past that they can't run a nation and as soon as the external support ends they will be gone. Especially telling is the relation with all sides and the Opium trade.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

good. but there must be a reason that western countries can not really stop or crush the government terrorism as you mentioned.
if we say that Nato is not capable of withstanding some militants, it is really odd.
there must be something ! maybe something above top secrets !!

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

 

We are in a fight that continues until somebody goes down, like the way fights used to be fought.

Sadly, far too many of our own troops have gone down unnecessarily because of our own lame military and political leadership.

Originally posted by poet1b
We are twelve years into this fight slapping around a hopelessly out matched opponent.

There's always going to be hope for the Taliban and other terrorists so long as the US and others keep funding Pakistan with tax-payer aid money to the tune of $2+ per year.

Originally posted by poet1b
It looks like the only way to end this fight is to deliver the fatal blow, but we have become too civilized for such an action.

I think a fatal blow could be more civilised by for example civilly stopping Western funding of state sponsors Pakistan & Egypt and by seizing control over satellites to end pro-terrorist TV.

The fatal blow is more likely to be a correct strategy than lashing out in anger.

Originally posted by poet1b
Which means we must make the long commitment, if we want to do the right thing.

My view is that this war on terror is taking so long because we have used the wrong strategy, done the wrong thing, very often.

Doing the right thing for a change could shorten this war significantly.

reply to post by Mr Peter Dow

My view is that this war on terror is taking so long because we have used the wrong strategy, done the wrong thing, very often.

The wrong thing is that the US/NATO are helping the Taliban recruit from the local population.

Imagine your family got blown to bits by an invading army... are you going to sit around or do something to get back at those who killed them? Would you not join the local resistance?

In this case,the Taliban, whether you like them or not.... happen to be the face of Afghan resistance. Afghan tribesmen who had their loved ones killed would sign up for the Taliban. Its not the Taliban that the US/NATO are fighting, but the entire Afghan population.