They didn't bomb the presidential palace or the governor's mansions...that's inconsequential. Every asset or every hiding ground of Taliban/ISIS/AQ was targeted and the insurgents were not given room to freely operate.
They didn't bomb most military bases either.
The truth is that most of the initial fighting was left to the Northern Alliance. Air support was not as abundant as you'd think.
So you're proposing bombing each and every living person in Afghanistan? Alright, let's suppose we even are capable of doing that, then what? How does that resolve the terrorism issue we have at hand?kou
That is absolutely not what im proposing. That's absurd and a strawman argument.
I'm proposing bombing high value militant targets, known bases, and targeting banks and financial institutions.
Cripple them both leadership wise, and economically.
This would help the NRF gain a proper foothold, and turn Afghanistan's guns inwards.
For how long will you keep playing this game of whack-a-mole? This isn't the LTTE that you are fighting in Sri Lanka where you can bomb all their infrastructure and hand them a military defeat. Neither is it Gaza that you can bomb 100 sq mi area into oblivion and keep everyone caged.
I never proposed what you've written in the first place.
It's become very convenient of late for all in this part of the world to put all the blame on Afghanistan and absolve yourself of your responsibilities.
Never did any such thing.
But I must remind you that I was one of the few people since the old PDF that actively said the return of the taliban was not a good idea.
I think it's high time we accept that the terrorism issue is now fully home grown, and not only an imported problem, and need to tackle it as such.
It is not.
This is as bad of a take as said that the terrorism issue is entirely afghanistan's fault.
its a mix of both, because militants born on both sides of the border have participated and died for militant causes.
on top of that, Afghanistan has NEVER been friendly towards Pakistan, ever.
Blaming Afghanistan every time and getting all red in the eyes with blood isn't going to give you a long term practical solution, just short term euphoria.
See above.
Ah yes...strategic depth, magr aik twist kay sath. Because last time our endeavors went so well. Besides, what is up with this pipe dream of Balkanizing Afghanistan? Again, what will that do? The pushtun belt will remain as is, and that is where you have an issue. The rest of the country is practically irrelevant to us, balkanize or not.
Never said anything about strategic depth.
Again, no idea where this came from.
Balkanizing Afghanistan is not in fact a pipe dream. Afghanistan has a ton of ethnic tensions and violence. It is ripe for such a thing.
The pashtun belt will continue to exist, sure, but the territory they'll operate from will be more manageable and easier to deal with...and that's the point.
www.aljazeera.com
