David,
Thank you for that. I think what we are all disturbed by is the general know it all air displayed by three journalists who have not been in theatre and especially not outside the wire. I have not been there and the chances of me being deployed are very slight indeed, so I am speaking from second hand knowledge. However it appears that the Taiban have been forced to resort to suicide bombers, mines and IEDs because the odds of them placing no better than second in a fire fight are too great to make it a viable tactic. This situation was predicted late last year, so it has not come as a big surprise. This certainly is not an indication that we are losing the war.
Hint, mounting battle casualties are not an indication that we are losing. These things happen, they are unfortunate, but they are part of war, even a 'little war' like this one. We would all feel better if we felt that those expressing their point of view had bothered to study some of the available literature on counter-insurgency operations and on land combat in general. It is a dirty, nasty business and things going wrong is more or less par for the course. Just as a swallow does not make a summer, a LAV setting off a massive explosive charge does not make a defeat. By the same token, improving our equipment is neither a sign of desperation nor an escalation in the arms race. The aim is to beat the enemy - bringing a gun to a knife fight is not cheating.
One last point, and I feel strongly about this. Contrary to frequently stated opinion, the Afghans have lost a helluva lot more wars than they have won. Alexander the Great beat them. Various Mongols beat them. The British beat them in all three of the wars they fought in Afghanistan, despite suffering some serious reverses in the first two. They, especially the hill tribes, may be warlike and zenophobic, but the divisions inherent in their culture make them beatable.
In closing, David, thanks for caring enough to monitor this forum. I for one appreciate it.
