Destroying an entire village in retribution for these murders by a few is not the way to win the support of the Afghan government or the people. It matters not whether the government serves at our approval or not.
“You left out, in addition to stable, not a refuge for AQ and other terrorists.”
Did I? Stability would mean, to most, that the borders aren’t porous, and that regions aren’t no-go zones at night.
“There were elections in Afghanistan so the government has some legitimacy. It does not serve at our approval. We can’t remove it.”
You’re using the passive voice here with your first sentence. Did this government just eventuate, sui generis? Under whose aegis were these elections held? What was their origin? If you don’t think it serves at our approval, think of what would happen should we no longer approve to finance it nor defend its operatives. You can say that’s not actually ‘removing’ it if you like.
“Destroying an entire village in retribution for these murders by a few is not the way to win the support of the Afghan government or the people. It matters not whether the government serves at our approval or not.”
I agree with this part - I thought I had made it clear by starting off with ‘you’re right to question’ - meaning you’re right to question whether indiscriminately killing civilians is in any way wise. Shutting down the mosque, other restrictions of suspect ‘civilians’ though should be an available option, including killing those not wearing a uniform but who are acting in a threatening way, such as mobbing a UN outpost.