I agree mostly, but the surge worked in Iraq to the extent we placed more men in populated areas. Prior to the surge, there weren't enough to conduct operations in rural areas and populated centers. AQI made a strategic mistake by targetting civilians in Sunni areas, namely Anbar Province. We began paying them as a means of them providing their own security, which gave them the secondary benefit of employment. You are correct; paying 1 guy doesn't create 10 more insurgents. Killing one guy will.
Are you completely daft? :insane: You think spending less money to better defeat the Taliban is "throwing money at the problem" :huh:
And don't start with your it costs $10k to kill one and only $2k to not kill them. You can't quantify that.
Hell i say we just let them grow poppy again, and open some Opium dens all over Afghanistan. Get em all addicted and then take it away, then give em a little taste if they act right.
1. i have no idea if it is a smart idea to pay. i tend to agree with red, but i am not sure. 2. the reason we fight them is so the country doesnt regress into a place where terrorists can run camps and train each other to murder you or your friends.
Do you even read my posts? I'm about to stop wasting my time by answering you. Once more and I;ll use very small words . . . spending $8,000 per taliban loss by desertion versus spending $800,000 to for each taliban loss by death is what we call saving money.
