One would have hoped that our strategy and tactics would have been thoroughly vetted before we started bombing, but once again, we appear to have gone to a “fire - ready - aim” mode not unlike the fabled Wild West, where you shoot first, ask questions later.

Most thoughtful analysts knowledgeable about Afghanistan said the same thing: you cannot win this war by bombing, so why is it now, surprise surprise, that those responsible for waging the war are gradually reaching the same conclusion?

To this observer, it appears that the generals, bereft of any risk-free solution to the problem before them, have reverted to the bombers as being the safest course.

Hammering away at your enemy from 15,000 ft. may help keep your casualties down, but the results of such a tactic are more likely to be measured in the deaths of noncombatants, than any harm inflicted on the intended Taliban targets.

The tactics most likely to achieve success on this battlefied are also the most risky. In order to achieve our objectives, U.S. military strategists cannot be so paralyzed by the fear of casualities that they resort to such ineffective, but relatively safe tactics as bombing rocks, decoys and the innocent.

Only with U.S. forces on the ground will we be able to get the kind of intelligence necessary to track our quarry and bring it to justice, but putting ground forces into this environment is a risky and perilous business likely to result in casualties to our forces.

Winston Churchill said “Americans always do the right thing...after they've tried everything else.”

I can only hope that we stumble onto an effective strategy before we squander the legitimacy of our cause with an ineffective bombing campaign.

sp