"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...
And that's exactly how we should fight insurgents when we can hit 'em without endangering civilians or destroying infrastructure. Pour on the firepower and let the bodies rot.
But killing cannon fodder should not be confused with progress in the war. That's the old Whack-A-Mole game insurgents want you to play. They lose nothing when a few footsoldiers are killed, and they actually gain prestige for standing up to the powerful Americans. They also gain another handful of martyrs they can put on posters to recruit more cannon fodder. We achieve very little, aside from temporary safety.
Unfortunately, our enemies in Afghanistan have considerable mobility because they move on foot in terrain that puts severe limitations on vehicles. We are more mobile when we can combine helicopters and foot travel, but dangerously predictable when we use the roads. That's how the Soviets got their butts kicked, depending on those crappy roads.
As for well-armed ... they don't give any details so who can say. But a guerrilla fighter needs only an AK-47 and couple hundred rounds to be well-armed in my book.