The Strategy on Front in Afghanistan

Is more troops forces necessary? Of course, I would send an extra 100,000 troops. Or it would be a failure (although, it isn’t really the truth). Osama bin Laden is failing every moment anyway. It is a matter of mass media wars; although, in my point of view, bin Laden is losing more morale, and US/NATO presence is simply unbeatable.

The question is thus: my strategy, then, probably should be considered. If US, and/or NATO, do not want to waste more money, but rather invest in energy processions, which could deliver a result of napalm warfare. I’m not so sure which is more pricey, extra one tenth of million of troops, or just massive napalm that might work better on the geopolitical level scale.

If napalm warfare continue, along with the military airspace system’s system (specifically Predator), it would reduce al Qaeda’s confidence level significantly, and it would enable the majority of Afghanistan to guard against Iran’s operational cooperation system with Pakistan. To me, this view may be somewhat skewed over there, simply because Iran “helped” Afghans alongside to their country, while “Pakistan” Taliban ruled over them, acknowledgedly doing the political game within Iranian regime. Which all thus pointed to bin Laden.

Which further confused me: Is Obama or Osama the target? Their social security number is strikingly similar. Yet Osama bin Laden is selling the information all over northern Virginia through business connections, or most likely, terrorism means. (refer to my other article on anti-deafism: this is a faulty loophole through the legalization of people with disabilities being able to come to over here, especially if one is deaf, although he or she may be too naive of his or her family’s presence of terrorism).

I don’t know. It’s up to Obama to eliminate Osama for good, if he is to want to win the American faith in post-9/11 period. Or Obama can just kill himself to discredit the Chicagoan connection for all I care to save the additional economy sacrifices from going to Osama bin Laden. Otherwise, Obama is just not doing enough. Send additional troops. Or even better, save money by sending some dangerous weapons over the area. Napalm bombings for example. I’d heard that they are banned, but I don’t care: I’m pretty certain that in post-9/11 setting, the rules can be loosen quite enough rightly.

Let’s napalm the hell of Taliban areas for all I care on October 31st.

The next target? It may be Iran. While they’re working on medium missiles, NATO ought to be doing something. Otherwise, it might be perceived as too weak to Russian eye.