Afghanistan: Make Friends or Kick Ass?

With the departure of General McCrystal from Afghanistan and General Patreus taking his place, many are questioning the tactics recently used in Afghanistan which call for more restraint in an attempt to minimize civilian casualties. 

If we dropped what some call "ridiculous rules of engagement" in Afghanistan, then how would what we are doing be different from what the Russians were doing in Afghanistan 30 years ago?

Remember, the reason we originally when into Afghanistan was because Al Quada was based there.  But by all accounts Al Quada has not been active in Afghanistan for many years, so the people we're fighting now are the same people the Russians fought a generation ago. 

The enemy we're fighting now in Afghanistan has no interest in America at all.  They just don't want us there, which is understandable.  We certainly wouldn't want the Chinese Army occupying parts of Washington State

The reason we're there now isn't because the Taliban threaten the Freedom of Americans.  They don't. The reason is the assumption that they will allow their country to be a base for Al Quada or other terrorists as they did before. So the objective is to install a government that will be friendly to us. 

Unfortunately, more aggressive rules of engagement will lead to more civilian casualties, which will make more people hate Americans and more likely to support groups hostile to Americans, like Taliban or Al Quada.

So there's the problem.  Our larger objective for Afghanistan is a stable government which is friendly to the America.  But the Army is much better at killing people and breaking things than making friends, which is what Obama and McCrystal was trying to do.

I'd like to suggest what the best answer is, but I really don't know.  But stepping up the brutality won't work for the Americans any better than it worked for the Russians.