head of militant network Haji Mali Khan captured

[the_tyrant]

A senior leader of the militant Haqqani network, Haji Mali Khan, has been captured in Afghanistan, the Nato-led international force Isaf has said.

He was detained during an operation by Afghan and coalition forces in Paktia province on Tuesday, Isaf said.

He was heavily armed but did not resist, it added.

Haji Mali Khan is the senior commander in Afghanistan for the Haqqani network, blamed for some recent Afghan attacks and accused of links to Pakistan.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15136007

did the CIA suddenly get better or something lately?

[CaptainHaplo]

No pinhead Pineta is trying to boost Obama in the polls......

We have always had the capability to kill or capture the majority of terrorists.

We simply lack the political will. So what has changed?

Suddenly Obama advisors admit it will be a "titanic" struggle to get him re-elected. His polls are way down. Independents are fleeing him, while paying attention to the other party candidates. And a man of color just became a player in the republican race - and if he wins the left can't be assured of the black vote.....

Coincidence?

[Gerald]

An expected response.

[Fincuan]

It's greatly confusing how Americans here always complain about the lack of political will to take down terrorists, and what happens then? You got a president who has ever since the beginning of his tenure demonstrated he has at least some kind of balls what comes to this arena, and it's actually a fault that he did something. It's just because of the polls. Come on, try to decide that you want. Should there be political willpower to take down terrorists or not?

[Gerald]

Politicians should not, take in something that they can not handle, tell them, but do not mix them into tactical field operations.

[Fincuan]

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there, but in any case politicians should have nothing do with the actual execution of field ops. That's a soldiers' job, and down the history there's plenty of examples why. In a properly working democracy it should, however, be the politicians who approve the op beforehand and deal with the consequences afterwards if the stakes are high enough. Engaging terrorists within a sovereign country's borders, without the "host" knowing about it, is a damn good example of this.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Fincuan

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say there, but in any case politicians should have nothing do with the actual execution of field ops. That's a soldiers' job, and down the history there's plenty of examples why. In a properly working democracy it should, however, be the politicians who approve the op beforehand and deal with the consequences afterwards if the stakes are high enough. Engaging terrorists within a sovereign country's borders, without the "host" knowing about it, is a damn good example of this.

You saw it all right, for terror and its activities, so for some other game rules, a a "normal" war, but many similarities are, however, politicians have been as familiar an opinion which in many cases differ from the strategist who follows situation in real time, and not by artificial bureaucrat, and long decision paths.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Fincuan

It's greatly confusing how Americans here always complain about the lack of political will to take down terrorists, and what happens then? You got a president who has ever since the beginning of his tenure demonstrated he has at least some kind of balls what comes to this arena, and it's actually a fault that he did something. It's just because of the polls. Come on, try to decide that you want. Should there be political willpower to take down terrorists or not?

Political willpower that only appears when its politically expedient is what makes folks have no use for politicians.

The will to wage a war on terrorism does not exist. Hasn't and won't. What does exist is the will to wage limited actions when its convienent. The current administration is no different than the last on that score.

War doesn't ease up to lessen civilian casualties. War doesn't protect the innocent. War is uncaring. War is an US or THEM equation - the loser dies.
To end terrorism, you have to kill its foundation, its various reasons for existing (which right now is "extreme" islam - but has been any number of causes over history). Do you think the path the "civilized" world is on against islamic fundamentalism is ever going to erradicate it as a belief system? The strategy being used can only try (and fail) to contain it.

You can't take down all the terrorists as long as they have a populace to hide in that refuses to point them out and isolate them. Thus this strategy is doomed to ultimate failure.

[Fincuan]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Do you think the path the "civilized" world is on against islamic fundamentalism is ever going to erradicate it as a belief system? The strategy being used can only try (and fail) to contain it.

You can't take down all the terrorists as long as they have a populace to hide in that refuses to point them out and isolate them. Thus this strategy is doomed to ultimate failure.

Fully agreed. What's currently happening is not the solution what comes to terrorism, but it's still part of the solution. It affects the enemy's ability to conduct ops and thus at least slows down a downward spiral. It's better than nothing if you're not willing or able to tackle the root of the problem, the supporting populace as you imho correctly pointed out.