Is Afghanistan Pointless???

As I look at the Manley Report I am struck by the total absence of certain critical information. For example:

1. There is no attempt to quantify the number of Afghani casualties needed to gain their trust and friendship. Using Vietnam or Iraq as a yardstick it could be quite a large number. And then, there is another problem, who would qualify as a casualty?  Would only those individuals killed be considered?  If indeed the wounded are to be counted would the severity of the wound be assessed points as a percent of a “kill”?
    

2. Are all “kills” of equal importance? If a family (mother, father, two adolescents and a baby) is accidentally killed when their house is mistakenly destroyed are they counted as five “kills”? Or are points to be awarded on a basis of age and/or gender?  Or, indeed are they simply disregarded since the killing was unintended?
    

3. If we are using a point system and we are lucky enough to cause a combatant to become a “kill” will there be bonus points? 
    

4. Once we arrive at the desired number of dead people required to win, we can consider a proper ratio of Canadian “kills” to Afghani “kills”.  {When  people are dead they should be shown equal respect)  To make this calculation we will need to know how many citizens we have already killed and injured. That number may be difficult to obtain.
    

5. Since Afghanistan is only slightly more populous than Iraq we may be able to extrapolate figures from that conflict zone. Iraq has had  around four thousand to five thousand  coalition “kills” and possibly one million Iraqis “kills” A ratio of about 1/250.  There is an obvious problem -this ratio, and the total number of kills, has not been effective in securing  a lasting friendship with Iraq.
    

6. If, indeed, we would need a much larger number of Afghani”kills” (say two - three million) to have a chance of making friends, would these numbers be acceptable? At a 1/250 ratio that would mean eight to twelve thousand Nato “kills”. As civilized people we would probably not accept such losses.
    

7. This would mean resorting to various high-tech methods of  pacification. Remote control drones, spy satellites, cluster bombs (legal for US military) and land mines (legal for US military), and other goodies.  There are always problems when we are forced to use such devices.  It is possible to make mistakes. In  rural areas sheep could be killed, even the odd shepherd, or possibly some small girls on the way to school.

But it will all worthwhile if we can improve the lives of the survivors.  Those lucky few that get jobs on the pipeline will certainly be grateful.