Pacifier

So, you want alternative plans? OK depends on which style you like i show you two. First we have to define ourr goals, what do we want to achieve in Afghanistan? The primary goals are:

Capture OBL
Capture the leaders of the AlKaida
Destroy teerrorist infrastructure (camps etc.)

Bonuns mission:
liberate Afghanistan.

Plan one (smart style):
Get some Special Forces into Afghanistan to locate AlKaida Camps, OBL etc. Then try to capure these guy and use guided weapons to destroy the Camps.

advantages:
- no or very little civilian casulties, therefore you dont have to answer the question why killing thousands of afghan civilians is OK.
- the chances to get OBL or at least verify his death are higher

advantages:
- long mission
- possible more american deaths
- bonus mission missed

Plan Two (brutal style):

Bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, than go in with groundforces and liberate the land, establish a UN Goverment and try to convert Afghanistan into a democracy

advantages:
- quick complete control over the land, no or very little chances for AKaida to escape
- no need for local (Northern alliance) troops.
- better chances to establish a stable goverment
- better chances to have a long term success
- the announcement effect for other goverments is good since it shows the we are willing to put some effort to "democratise" a nation

disadvantages:
- more coalition deaths
- guerillia warfare after the invasion (like iraq now)
- the convertion into a democracy would take time and money
- high numer of civilian death, raising the question if "an eye for an eye" or better "a civillian for civillian" is a valid strategy in global policy


And now the Plan that was actually used (dumb style):

Bomb the shit out of Afghanistan, then use local extremists to "liberate" the land. Establish a weak local Puppet-Goverment and try to convert Afghanistan into a democracy

advantages:
- very little american/coalition deaths

disadvantages:
- local troops are corrupt and somewhat AlKaida-freindly making it very easy for AlKaida to buy their way out.
- the goverment is weak, means that it has no influence over the land. most parts are ruled be local troops
- chances for the goverment to survive long enough are low
- high numer of civilian death, raising the question if "an eye for an eye" or better "a civillian for civillian" is a valid strategy in global policy
- the announcement effect for other goverments is not very good since it shows no real effort to build a goverment that will last long enough
- this plan shows that "revenge" is higher ranked than "help"


So the fact that something was done is not bad, I agree that something had to be done to fight AlKaida. But what was done is, in my opinion, the worst thing that could be done. None of our mission are completed. noone knows where OBL is, or what the status of AlKaid is. They could be destroyed, but it is also very possible that they moved out of Afghanistan and formed multiple smaller "terror cells". Tis would make the future figh against AlKaida very difficult

__________________
"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death
— Albert Einstein