[S.T.D.]

Spec Ops forces are tremendously productive, and while expensive cost less and work better than RMA firepower techniques that kill the wrong people and make fresh enemies. They are suited for the WoT and we need more of them.

Indeed. I frequent an army ranger board that gets a lot of feedback from our young people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's amazing their depth of knowledge of the Islamic mindset they're battling. More than a few, now on their second and third tours, are even speaking passable Arabic. "Know thy enemy."

BTW Our special ops people in Afghanistan, working in conjunction with air support, have taken out more than 17,000 terrorists. That figure is probably conservative.

[Paul Bunyan]

I bounce those questions off as many folks as I can to get different insights.

True, a PROPERLY PLACED RPG can HALT (and sometimes kill) any AFV built, but they are a more difficult target than a soft-skinned vehicle or an uparmored HMMWV, which has poor cross-country mobility compared to a tracked machine.
Tracked vehicles are far more mobile than wheeled machines, although wheels are often better on good roads. They have more usable internal space, and are (if properly designed) easier to fight from within.

The Russians came up with this airmobile rig

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...ad.php?t=89993

which is a bit nicer than a wheeled truck. The US had the Sheridan, but they went to the scrapyard along with the idea of American airmobile armor.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

RPGs remain the biggest headache for US forces and others alike. Cheap and seminal its available to every bandit and guerilla outfits. Talking of countermeasures like Phalanx against RPGs is easy but they are damn more expensive than RPGs themselves.

[Ifroham4]

We put a high value on human life in America, as does Israel.

But only if it comes to American lifes. All I see is killing, violence and again killing.

You youself say

BTW Our special ops people in Afghanistan, working in conjunction with air support, have taken out more than 17,000 terrorists. That figure is probably conservative.

So what? The Russians "took out" a million. It just doesn't work this way. You can be as effective in killing as you like.

What is the goal?? Killing every single person in Afghanistan? Even most effective western killing technology can not achieve that.

[Raj_Copi_Jin]

First you have establish real success criteria. Afghanistan will NEVER been anything like a 2nd or 1st world country. NEVER. So we have to agree what we mean by success and victory. 40% literacy? A semi stable government that can do a, b, c & d? No more than 10 attacks per month per region? Electricity to 50% of the people 75% of the time? Female enrollment in schools of X? Infant mortality rate of Z? GDP growth of Q%/yr for S years?

You have to be able to write it down and then you have to ignore all the rest and say the hell with it. So if it takes a given level of military action to secure those goals then good. If you can't achieve those goals, find new ones or abandon the effort completely and leave Afghanistan. After all even Rudyard Kipling wrote about what a hell hole it was. This is nothing new.