The US is helpless in taking out the big fish who lie deeper inside Pakistan
Not really.
AFP: Pakistan Taliban chief Baitullah Mehsud dead: militants
You cannot win in a counter-insurgency war. The mission for us in Afghanistan is to improve the lives of the Afghan people as best as we can before we leave and to hand over our responsibilities for the ANA to handle thereafter. That is our mission. We cannot just leave and go 'hey, thanks for letting us invade your country to search for Bin Laden and to remove the Taliban from your country for supporting Bin Laden and Al Queda in the September 11 attacks in my country. We now leave you in a worse situation than before- Afghanistan still isn't a democratic country and is instead still corrupt by its Karzai government; Taliban insurgent activities have been increasing since we invaded and one day, if we do not eradicate them, will re-emerge in your tribal villages and punish all those who helped the Americans and British and other ISAF forces and the Afghan people are still living in fear without peace. We're now leaving and you can fix yourself up now as the 170th poorest country in the world under a corrupt Karzai government.' It's unrealistic and dishonourable of us to do so until the ANA can take over from us and until Afghanistan is a democratic and safe country, free from oppression, corruption and violence, under a corrupt free democratically-elected government.
The only way we can improve the lives of the Afghans is by building trust between us and the Afghans (that is by bombing less and bringing in more troops to give them a sense of security); by assuring them that we are not occupation forces (which will hamper on the recruitment of suicide bombers by the Taliban); by providing them with security (done by a larger troop commitment i.e. surge which will prevent the Taliban and its supporters returning to villages the same night that coalition troops had just patrolled and lessen the painful occurrences of patrols engaging the enemy and beating them only to retreat back to their outposts and bases the same day to allow the Taliban to regroup again and attack in the future) and financial aid (since most of Afghanistan's economy is generated by its opium exports); by providing better training and motivation and leadership training for the ANA (in order to allow us to withdraw in the future); by continuing to support anti-Taliban tribal groups in the tribal areas between the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan; by supporting and trusting the efforts of the Pakistan Army (which are taking a beating at this moment); by increasing the number of UAV bombing sorties to hunt for Taliban leaders and by maintaining general public support for the war effort by us (a vital element in winning, or gaining the upper hand in, a counter-insurgency war)
More violent bombings is the only way we can win this. Small sorties won't be able to do enough. Either that or fucking huge numbers of troops - most coalition forces don't have enough troops in there imo, Australia has way too little. Send our fighter jets over there at the very least ffs.
Like I said, this war is practically not winnable. There will be no white flag from the Taliban. Carrying out more violent bombing attacks will not help at all in the war effort. Sure they will, if we can hit Taliban targets all the time but that's unrealistic when they use innocent Afghans as human shields.
Taliban terror holds 2,000 villagers as human shields - Times Online
This will just result in more civilian deaths and in a counter-insurgency operation it is important to win the 'hearts and minds' of the civilian population as shown by the British in Malaya. Killing innocent civilians, even if by accident, will not win hearts and minds. Instead, what I believe should be done is to send more troops to the country and give the Afghan people security while the ANA gets the experience to be a competent enough force to protect its own country.
Yes, we do not have enough in Afghanistan but then again if a government sends more troops to Afghanistan they will probably lose in their next election as public support for the war wanes as the casualties mount up and questions of why we are there start becoming rampant(which is understandable when you live in Wooten Bassett and have seen over 200 caskets pass through your town's streets). Politicians tend not to like to do that, especially those from European countries, except of Britain and France. However, I also believe more Australian troops need to be sent. Probably one more battalion. The funny thing is when you say that is all NATO forces, which make up the majority of the ISAF in Afghanistan, have more soldiers on the ground than us! Anyway, back to the point, if we can send 5000 to East Timor in 1999 we can increase our contribution to 2000 soldiers., then again it probably would be unnecessary, unless if the Dutch withdraw, but yet more troops would make Afghanistan a more secure country temporarily; how long will they stay there is the question.
Fighter jets won't do much unless if an infantry unit is about to be overrun (as what nearly happened to a US unit last year when their outpost was attacked by about 1000 Taliban) and then again that would be danger close. In the mountains of Afghanistan gunship helicopters play the best role in air support for the troops. A 30mm chain gun and 20mm cannons together with hellfire missiles can do more damage to Taliban forces than an F18 Hornet fighter jet dropping down a bomb danger close in support to the coalition infantry down below.