Red_Dave

Well unless you hold every single person in each of the villeges in question personally responsible for the kidnappings then there is not much the majoirty of these people can do it about. Thus the U.S armed forces are, by their own admission, going to be against them either way.

apdst

The majority of the people can do two things: 1) they can pressure the terrorists to give the guy up, or 2) they can provide our units as to the whereabouts of the soldier.

__________________
...you're the kind of man it's a pleasure to hang. If all you can talk is guff, you can talk it to the Devil. --Gus McRae

Red_Dave

That assuming

[A] they know where the terroists are
[B] They have means to do so, often the terroists have guns and they dont. Indeed if the American armed forces caught them with guns they would probably be carted off to guantanomo.
[C] They know were they are
And disregards the fact that

[A] The taliban are not, generally speaking, willing to bow to public opionion.
[B] By ordering people to do things on threat of being blown up you are sending a pretty strong message that you are against them.

Ultimatly we,re supposed to be protecting their elected government rather then forcing our authority on them. If we do the latter this government will have no legitimacy and will meet the same end as South Vietnams.

apdst

So, you would propose doing nothing? That's not a solution.

__________________
...you're the kind of man it's a pleasure to hang. If all you can talk is guff, you can talk it to the Devil. --Gus McRae

Red_Dave

Neither is persuing a line of action thats going to worsen the situation for our troops. I would prefer doing nothing to doing something that will defeat the object of the entire conflict.

apdst

It's been proven that a passive approach doesn't work.

__________________
...you're the kind of man it's a pleasure to hang. If all you can talk is guff, you can talk it to the Devil. --Gus McRae

Red_Dave

Passive seams to be the wrong word here. Its not about being "soft" or "tough" its about being tough on those we,re fighting whilst cooperating with those we are, at least in theory, supossed to be liberating. Historically the only times in which people have won counter-insurgency campaigns by being "tough" on the civillian population are those in which the population in question was wiped out.

apdst

At the same time, we can't seen as taking a passive approach to those who would sit bcak and watch, while one of our soldiers is being held hostage and probably tortured. He's already been used as a propaganda tool, which is a violation of international law. We have to send the message, that some point the fence sitters are going to have to choose sides.

__________________
...you're the kind of man it's a pleasure to hang. If all you can talk is guff, you can talk it to the Devil. --Gus McRae

Donkey1499

It's called an investigation. Go door to door and search for him. Bombing an entire village, killing everybody in it - even possibly the very soldier you're trying to save - is barbaric. Like what Red Dave was saying, we're there to supposedly liberate the Afghan people, not blast them all to holy hell! They won't be willing to cooperate if we go in there with guns blazing like the Taliban.

Red_Dave

So they will be on our side if we force them to?