I think there is no question that the tactics and ROE used in Afghanistan were less than optimal. But the strategy of taking the fight to the jihadists was the correct one following 9/11 and a whole host of other attacks. The author claims that Luttrell is wrong when Luttrell says his team members deaths were not in vain. He bases this on his political opinion that entry into Afghanistan was wrong. I reject that out of hand and so does Luttrell so who is the author to declare Luttrell wrong based on their differing politics? To me the author referenced by future snake eater is simply using Luttrell’s team to make a political point that does not make true his assertion that Luttrell’s team members died in vain chasing jihadists 4 years after 9/11.
We're in agreement on that, but your 'but' suggests we're not. I simply don't agree with repeating a failed strategy. The Russians weren't the first to fail in Afghanistan.
SOF have unique capabilities in that environment, but it clashes greatly with regular force military doctrine. Everything changed after it was ramped-up.