'This is what an IED looks like. I took this photo near Kandahar.'

I don't. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, and the links between Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and OBL were tenuous at best and hugely overblown. As far as I can tell, our invasion seems to have affected an enormous increase in world opium production more than anything else. I don't know whom that benefits, but it sure isn't what I pay my taxes for.

She is my representative :-)

And people continue to universally agree that going in there was a good idea? I mean, really? I grant you that nearly everyone was for it in the weeks after 9-11. Even I said something to that effect. But, hey, I was 19 and naive. Were the same thing to happen again tomorrow, I would not be so quick to judge, for what seemed liked a good idea at the time looks a lot more questionable 8 years later. Bin Laden is free, Afghanistan's cost to us in terms of lives and treasure grows by the week, the Taliban still rule large parts of the country, and Al Qaeda is not crippled.

I am not asserting that the invasion was unjustified, but you have got to admit that it's highly debatable whether the benefits outweigh the costs in this, the eighth year of the war.

There was a great deal of opposition to a full-fledged invasion, just not on mainstream television networks. I personally remember reading about a lot of more peaceful alternatives that ranged from not actually invading, to targeting Osama directly, to accepting offers by the Taliban to hand Bin Laden over to an international tribunal or neutral third-party country.

God knows how serious the last offer would have been (perhaps it was a stalling tactic), but it would have been easier to find the man that way - assuming locating Bin Laden was the actual point behind the invasion. Regardless of how things play out now, claiming there were not alternatives to invasion only excuses the poor judgment of those who backed the war in the first place. These people need to be kept as far from government as humanly possible, not excused for the "inevitability" of the Michael Bay approach to foreign policy.

The papers authorising war in Afghanistan were on the President's desk on the 10th September 2001, waiting to be signed. This is completely documented and in the public domain.

The war had nothing to do with 9/11. It was completely pre-planned. The Taliban were promised a "carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs" if they didn't cooperate with the pipeline project. They didn't cooperate.

I could say a lot more -- especially about 9/11 -- but this isn't the site for it.

If the Soviet Union hadn't invaded Afghanistan, they might have survived another decade+!

If the Victorian British Empire hadn't invaded Afghanistan... not sure

If the Arabs hadn't invaded Afghanistan, it might still be Zoroastrian!

If the Persians hadn't invaded Afghanistan, it might still be Bhuddist!

If Alexander the Great hadn't invaded Afghanistan, he might have lived to twice his age, and done who knows what!

A very interesting read on IEDS here: http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/007046.html

You're right - there are a number of triggering methods in use, to include IR, GPRS/"family band" radio, and cell. More sophisticated devices use a combination, like cell arming and IR/pressure plate/trip cord detonation. Simple command-wire detonation begat command-wire with a stand-off cell phone arming unit. This was so we couldn't follow wires to the bomber. For a time fake command wires were set up and boobytrapped. When we stopped following wires, they'd do it again. Or use something really simple like a washing machine timer for a regularly scheduled convoy.

In Afghanistan (at least 5 years ago), "long range cordless" was a popular option in remote areas without cell grids. These are Chinese-made cordless phones operating in the 20-40mhz frequencies with ranges of 10 miles or more. These are also popular in areas of Iraq without cell infrastructure.

It is a cat and mouse game of trigger mechanisms versus detection/deterrent. New detonation methods would show up all the time, with various techniques being popular in different regions at any given time (in both Iraq and Afghanistan). New methods are analyzed, equipment is designed to counter, companies bid on devices, and the countermeasures are pushed into the warzone as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, in my experience, these devices are always behind the curve.

It wouldn't be a good idea for me to go into detail about what these detection and deterrence methods do specifically. Sufficed to say I browsed this article's responses and didn't run into any suggestions or techniques that I hadn't personally used or seen implemented.

There's a wide variety of communications equipment insurgents have access to, because there aren't Iraqi or Afghan equivalents of the FCC. There is access to consumer radios and devices of all frequencies and outputs in these countries. The entire spectrum is game. I don't think there's a magic deterrent or detection method here.

Our best bet was always to schedule movements and map routes as erratically and randomly as possible. If we could, we would mix vehicle movements with foot and air movement. Keeping a good relationship with locals and randomizing movement as much as possible proved much more valuable than using the hottest new gizmo. Pulling over and buying a soda from a street vendor and chatting with the local police generally yielded better information about the road ahead than sitting sealed in an armored vehicle staring at computer displays.

Canadian troops go on missions alone too, and I assume the same is true of the other NATO members.

This is almost tailor made to set stuff off by remote. Beta test using the ringer, when it's all good make it hot by switching your profile to 'silent'.

This isn't the kind of problem that you can solve with technology - sure, you can make it more difficult, but the people who make these things do nothing else during a day but make IEDs; they'll find a new way to blow things up. Nothing encourages people to tinker with electronics like the perception that their country is being invaded and that they can fight back with bombs.

So take control of their cell system (which, by the way, will do wonders for the perception that the US doesn't run the country) if you want, but don't expect that to change much. The way to beat IEDs is to make it so they don't want to set IEDs, or at least so that you've got enough people who don't want them set that they can report when others are.