We need to learn (again) that as long as we focus on killing "bad guys" we just guarantee our ultimate defeat. That's not the way you fight an insurgency, as we realized too late in Vietnam.
Since insurgents, by definition, cannot be distinguished from ordinary civilians, the only way you can defeat an insurgency by force is by killing everybody. And it's pretty stinkin' hard to kill everybody in a rugged, thinly populated Third World toilet like Afghanistan -- even if you have overwhelming firepower. Not to mention they have a sanctuary over the border in Waziristan.
Nope, we should do as little killing as we can in Afghanistan while limiting the threat to civilians as much as possible. Meanwhile we need to win over ordinary Afghans by making their lives better -- providing roads, telecommunications, clean water, agricultural aid, schools and teachers, economic development, medical care, etc. -- all the things that make peace better than war for Achmed the farmer and Abdul the shoemaker.
"pitting American howitzer and mortar fire against a well armed and highly mobile foe.."
Another crappy piece of liberal writing to make it sound like we Americans have 1 piece of weaponry against a well armed enemy. Guess who died? 19 of the "highly mobile foe"...some mobility - hope they are "mobile" in hell!!!
I just can't stand our liberal communist jihadi journalists! Man, why can't we trade some of them for gitmo prisoners...