On Feb 18, 8:07*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message

...
On Feb 15, 8:12 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

Someone seems to have untied those hands. But of course everyone knows
that Obama is so soft on terrorism and is unable to do anything in
Afghanistan. Hey, Ali, have you seen my rolladex? Or maybe Mr. Baradar
just likes to chat. Sans augment interrogation techniques. Pfffft!
February 19, 2010
In Blow to Taliban, 2 More Senior Leaders Are Arrested
By DEXTER FILKINS

Well, remember that Clinton tended to defer to the military.
He was quoted as saying his lack of service meant he didn't
have enough credibility to ignore the Pentagon's advice.

I think the same thing is going on here. They seem to be applying
all the lessons learned in Iraq to this operation. It was clear
during most of Iraq that the Pentagon brass wanted more troops
and nation building then Bush/Cheney wanted.

The key may well have been McCain's opposition to Rumsfeld, who had
been behind the small footprint strategy, which worked great in
initial attack and capture of Iraq and Afghanistan but was criticised
fro too low a footprint after.

So far so good. Hopefully our military has finally figured out
how to 'win the hearts and minds'.

Agreed, and to combine it with the tactics that work in the field to
isolate guerrillas, drive off support, marginalize them and dry their
support base. Force them to either quit or stand in place in ground
where they can't move well enough to hit and run.