But the desire to unleash firepower ignores that we've done a pretty good job of killing enemies with restrictions on firepower usage:
According to data released by the Afghan government, war related deaths are running at the rate of 40 per 100,000 population (about 12,000 dead a year). Two thirds of the dead (at least in the last month) have been Taliban. About a quarter of the dead were civilians (mostly killed by the Taliban) and the remaining twelve percent security forces. Afghan casualties are unchanged, if you leaved out Taliban losses, over the last few years. Two years ago, civilian and security force losses were 15 per 100,000. They are still at that level. The NATO effort keep civilian losses down has had an impact here. ...
The hammering the Taliban are receiving (over 7,000 dead this year) is largely due to more foreign (especially American) troops, and the movement of air recon and intel resources from Iraq to Afghanistan. So far this year, recon sorties (by manned and unmanned aircraft) over Afghanistan have nearly tripled. ...
The commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, general David Petraeus, openly proclaims that the Taliban are being beaten. But the real problem in the country is the corruption and the drug gangs. Petraeus is going after the drug gangs, but the corruption requires more effort from U.S. diplomats in Afghanistan and officials back in the United States.
I argued against the urge to kill them all and let Allah sort them out in Iraq, and it paid off--even our former Sunni Arab enemies there are worried about our troops leaving! It will also pay off in Afghanistan.
Patience, people. We can win in Afghanistan without going postal. Indeed, restraint while killing just those who need to be killed will get us there. The point is to win and not to have satisfying Fourth of July fireworks on our evening news.
