from what I have heard, if there is more coalition troop activity in one area, the insurgents will simply move on to another area, or hide for a while in the remote mountain area of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. How that is supposed to put an end to the Taliban rule, I cannot see.
secondly, I have heard numerous journalists ( including those who were there ) say that those who really run Afghanistan outside of Kabul, are the local warlords, clansmen and tribes, and the taliban. Maybe I am wrong here, but I believe that the Afghani government is a puppet regime that is in no way connected to what happens in that country, and only exists because the west supports it.
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
But I also realize you are set in your beliefs and no matter what kind of information is presented, your mind is already made.
I could say the same thing about you, couldn't I ?
Neither of us can look into the future. Time will tell. From historical experience though, one could conclude that regular armed forces are generally ineffective against an armed insurgency. They blend in too well with the local population. In most cases, they
are the local population.
I am not saying that there can never be exceptions to that "rule", but atm, I fail to see that Afghanistan is one of them.
If you want to attribute that to my closed-mindedness, lack of better information, or stubbornness, is up to you.
and now, because it's superbowl sunday, let me give you this:
and this:
