Evidently you do not appreciate the length the Coalition Forces go to in confirming "hostile intent" before taking action.
Good try to misread what I'm saying, but no coconut - I'm not saying, and never have said, that we are operating a policy of shooting without reasonable confirmation of intent, I'm saying that some of the suggestions on this thread are being overly simplistic and apparently indifferent to any appreciation that we are supposedly attempting to assist a friendly government and people.. look back at post 12 for example, where you said
When they pulled out....the area reeked of success and they had taken no causualties themselves. Fight fire with fire when the circumstances provide the opportunity. Deny the roads to the Taliban then move to the trails....make it very dangerous for them to be moving....box them up....then run the B-52's in on them using JDAMS. Forget this patroling and being the target only.
We aren't at war with Afghanistan, we're supposedly there to help them esatblish a lawful society. I think you'll find, correct me if I'm wrong, that Vietnam didn't prove a model of how to win over a population?
There appears to be a perception on here that the forces are muddling along a bit and just need a bunch of retired folk (or those with no previous experience at all) to come up with some wizard wheezes.
If you want to avoid casualties then you either need to stay in camp and build rocket and mortar proof bunkers, or you need very good recce and intel. Until we win the majority of Afghan nationals over (don't hold your breath waiting) then these are going to be very hard to come by except on a very local and short term basis.
Dave
Why don't I post good ideas myself, as somebody suggested earlier? Well, I haven't had any, and I've the sense to realise that.