This is "stupid", if you will forgive me for using a highly technical term.
Peple who promote the idea that we could abandon the field to the enemy and just execute drive-by hits on leaders have no idea what they are talking about.
If you doubt me, consider this is exactly what we've done in the Pakistan tribal areas:
No analyst I spoke with thought we could do much better than the strategy of covert pinprick strikes that the United States and Pakistan are currently employing, wherein Pakistan frequently takes responsibility for U.S. strikes. This will not deprive al Qaeda of its safe haven, although it may occasionally yield important kills.
What about covert action? American Special Operations forces are already engaging in actions coordinated with the air strikes. The most notable achievement in this regard occurred in southern Afghanistan, where NATO and Afghan forces killed Mullah Dadullah Lang, the Taliban's top military commander, back in May. There are barriers, though, to expanding the Special Operations forces' role. The topography makes it difficult to insert and remove forces without being detected. Within the military, there is a real desire to avoid another Operation Eagle Claw--the ill-fated attempt to rescue hostages held at the U.S. embassy in Tehran during President Carter's term.
Pakistan decided last fall that they didn't want to fight the jihadis any more, and instead thought that targeted attacks on leaders could defang the jihadis. Instead, the jihadis have cemented their control in the area and threaten all of Pakistan and not just the Afghan government.
And every time we conduct a strike, the locals will parade the bodies of dead wedding guests and baby formula factory employees.
Focusing on al Qaeda means destroying the organization and eliminating its ability to intertwine with the local society. Luckily, it seems as if Pakistan belatedly realizes this basic fact.
