Both arms tied.

I would have to search for it again, but I saw yesterday some news extract that the Afghan MoD has asked NATO to refrain from the use of artillery or air strikes against the Taliban. I didn't see anything about tanks, but you can bet that's next.

For all of our technological edge over the opposition, our actual advantage boils down to one thing: Firepower. You can have all the sensors you want to tell you where the bad guys are, but you need effects. It used to be called the "sensor-shooter" link, but a telling change has that now as the "sensor-ACTOR" link. This politically-correct amendment might as well be to "observer" if you're not going to do anything with the info you gather. A "sensor-observer" link sounds redundant, and it is.

The only thing that gets the other side's head down in Afghanistan are things that go "boom", and the bigger the better. The walls of those compounds, grape huts, etc. are quite immune to small arms fire and of course our enemies know that. Removing the Guns and aircraft from our arsenal will level the playing field, which is NOT the plan in war. You want every advantage you can get in general, and more specifically you need heavy weapons to overcome defensive works.

It already takes an unreasonable amount of time to get approval for arty/air strikes, resulting in less effective operations as our guys get pinned down at best or dead at worst. I know where this is, but I'm not sure where it's going; there's a point past which it's not possible to achieve the desired results as out options are whittled away. We already don't have freedom of movement ('though those helicopters will help a bit), and if you remove our ability to defend ourselves and liquidate the enemy when we find them, we have well and truly lost.

"Lost" in this context only means our objective; stabilizing Afghanistan to no longer be a haven for those who'd do things like 9/11, the Madrid metro bombings, etc. Fighting these clowns is like playing "whack-a-mole" anyway, so I personally feel we've been in the 'Stan about six years longer than is in our National Interest.

I capitalize that because a lot of people forget that the government is supposed to look after it. Neutralizing Al Queda, etc. n'import ou is within our interest; pouring blood and treasure ad infinitum into a basketcase central Asian country is not.

Again, just me. Actually not; I haven't met any ISAF veteran in the CF that thinks (off the record) that we can in fact sort Afghanistan out. We keep going back because it's our job and the money's good. Some like the danger and excitement (when it happens), but more and more feel that we're wasting our time. Tie their hands more by cutting off tactical options and you'll see a lot more PTSD cases due to what they couldn't do that they should have. That is all me, but as unscientific as that statement is, I'll stand by it. It's not like it hasn't happened in Bosnia and on all those UN missions, and our RoE are headed in that direction.