I agree with you, I think our position is far too defensive. I am just saying that I can understand why we take the approach we take.
1. To wage a war in Afghanistan requires government approval, something I'm sure GHQ could get if they really wanted it, but it's not something you do just because of a border clash. War although winnable, would require defined outcomes, a plan to achieve them and lots of money to fight the war. Right now there isn't a clear strategy on what the war would achieve and how. Going gung ho is how conflicts like the Iraq war and Vietnam happen. We are not immune to that. Our enemies would like nothing more than us to get drawn into a quagmire.
2. Our military strategy is very textbook. it's based i bet still on what is taught in Sandhurst and Westpoint and is around maintaining territorial integrity and repelling attacks. The British and the Americans when training foreign troops imbed into the leadership class the limits they expect them to stay within, they won't be teaching people how to conquer.
I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when we started in this war against the TTP. Our forces had their asses handed to them for ages until we developed a COIN strategy that worked. I very much doubt we have a policy for expansionist projects.
Unfortunately i reckon this is our military culture. The Turks despite being NATO members are completely different to us. They have a heritage of aggression and expanding their borders, they've embraced that and kept that, hence their intervention in Cyprus and Syria.
3. Our expansionist projects were run by brave individuals. Kargil was Musharrafs idea, Zia, Hamid Gul and his successor, ran the Jihadi projects which had Pakistani backing as far as Bosnia and Chechnya. Unfortunately we didn't adopt this "front foot" model of thinking permanently.
In summary;
- We don't have a history of acting rashly, or overly harshly
- We don't want to finance a war
- We haven't planned or war gamed an expansionist war on this border
- Because of the above the army won't be reacting aggressively like so many of us want it too.
I expect them to do the following;
- Complete the fencing of the border.
- Provide top equipment to those at the border to ensure it's safety.
- Continue building garrisons in the region so armed forces can quickly be deployed.
- Continue/improve support towards TTA to undermine the Kabul government.
What I would like them to do is;
- All the above they are already working on.
- Carry out missile strikes and air raids on ANA posts and TTP posts in Afghanistan under the guise of taking out ISIS/Taliban.
- Beef up security on the border so if there are any further attacks they can be repelled quicker.
- Aggressively support TTA in undermining Kabul government
- Deport all the refugees as fast as we can. We need to cut this PTM below the knees as quick as we can.
- If ANA or Kabul prove to be difficult cut all diplomatic ties and all shipments
- Cut all NATO shipments too.
I don't think they will do this. Our military culture is to do the safest possible bet, minimise risk.