Quote:
As for the right way to run counter terrorist deployments, well there are two ways I can think of for dealing with that sort of operation: one is messy, inhumane, expensive and long and drawn out. This would involve the deployment of large amounts of combat troops and equipment to the region where the terrorists etc were (like the USA and NATO forces are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan)
The other is equally expensive, smaller in scale, equally brutal but less likely to involve large numbers of your (whichever counry you represent) troops. Instead specialist troops can act as "advisors" to a local force the counter-insurgency).
|
I maybe wrong, but I think that what history thaught us with Viet-Nam or Iraq is that victory in a war is not a military but political problem. Soldiers won fights, General won battles and politicians won wars...
Just imagine what will if in Afghanistan there was a real war, OTAN will send 10.000.000 troops from USA, 4.000.000 from Germany, 3.000.000 for each Italia,UK and France ...etc... What would happen? I am sure that in one month there wont be any taliban alive. With such an amount of troops, you don't need to bombard anything, so, no collateral dammage. But in order to get such a deployment you have to justify a war and not only a 'peace-keeping/war on terror' badly defined and conducted operation.
That's why I don't like tha therm of asymetrical war: it's asymetrical but certainly not a war, because in a democraty a war involves the country and not only a little group of unlucky professionnal soldier...
But this clearly off-topic, so, shame on me... [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/Bomb.gif[/img]