*"Also, how do we 'win' this war?" Why do we need to? Why not just stay there forever and deny the terrorists a place to train and hang out bothering the locals.*

You would need to “Win the war” because the rest of the world is not going to pay for the US empires excesses forever. When the credit is cut off, that will be the end of the US war machine.

*Consider it a police action where we stay once the pests are removed.*

The biggest pests are the invaders that are killing and wounding the inhabitants of a sovereign country that they have no right to be in.

*You all look at this as if we can just go in, do something and leave and it will all be OK, it is not like that, those days are over - terrorism is a new form of warfare it is "asymmetric"*

This not warfare, it’s invasion and subjugation. And for a supposedly military man, you should know that the only guerilla war that has ever been successfully contained is the Malaysian emergency by the British and that was because most of the population was on the side of the British.
This is an unwinnable war.

kh, says "DO realize that all the terrorists were people that were LET INTO THE COUNTRY TO LAUNCH A DOMESTIC ATTACK?

So I asked you to verify what your point was .. did the terrorists indicate on arrival to their target country of their intentions?

So you respond with, ""Which domestic attack?" How about rant rant rant attacked, and rant rant to actually be there. None of them have actually snuck in."

It's just a rant. Who said they "snuck" in? You did, I didn't so what's your point, I ask again.

To the rest of the peaceniks, get over it .. war is and always will be one of the ways things get settled.

So do we fight a guerilla war against guerillas? no, you deal with it by firstly depriving them of a base, stop them terrorizing the local populace and then slowly roll them up.

We can't just abandon the Afghanis to the Taliban. Well, unless you have no morals at all. You all whine about David Hicks and his treatment, but are happy to throw an entire population to a bunch of terrorists.

Either we are part of the world that cares about other people or we are not, if not .. then sure, let's pull out and shut up about the rest of the world, how people get treated, don't quote the UN or Amnesty Int,. ever again .. but you all want to selectively be out there "doing something" when it suits you. You want Australia to "take action" when it suits you .. but only for a little while till you lose interest .. (oh look,, Julia has done her hair differently today! fickle ..)

I reckon the primary reason for being against this war is POTUS Bush and PM Howard, so for your hatred, you'll throw and entire country on the scrapheap .. "too hard!" "John Howard" " George Bush!"

Harden up, tolerating intolerant people is rewarding the very people who make life such a misery for the population.

Rpg who's the "ranter" here?
What makes you think I'm a lefty peacenik?

Where is the terrorist's "base"?
Do they have an international headquarters, where upon its destruction the terrorist "nation" collapses?
Do you think Al Queda operatives are just going to hang around Afghanistan so we can find them?

And you'd be amazed how few enemies one would have when you don't go attacking other countries.

Anyway, detecting terrorists is called policework and detective work- so far, the majority of attempted terrorist attacks were detected and thwarted- and strangely, they were all motivated by our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq!
When they try to get in, we catch them at the border and if we regard them as suspicious, we don't let them in/apply for flying school (and many individuals and detective agencies noticed the 911 people were suspicious- they merely didn't act on it).

So, considering that most attempted terrorist attacks are quite detectable by security agencies, and the prime motive for attacking us is our presence in the middle east, what exactly is our point to be in Afghanistan?

George , good article .
Are you still out there ? Best wishes from an old student .
How many Dr George Venturinis (lawyer , acedemic , now 'retired') can there be ?
One such taught me Commercial Law @ UQ in the mid 60s .
Presumably you are still in Australia & , can still see through fraud & inadequate explainations when you encounter it - whether from double-talking merchant-gansters or double-talking , career-serving, parliamentary gangsters .
We have a problem with the latter on both sides of politics in Australia , as you have noticed .

The war sure seems like a crime. However, what entities can bring charges to the International Criminal Court? Can I as an individual do it? If not, who can do it?

rpg, I agree with much of what you say - particularly with regard to the UN and politicians. With regard to rules of engagement, I am not qualified to comment other than it does seem a nonsense that the West plays by Marquiss of Queensbury rules, and the Taliban by something else. Witness the nonsense presently with three of our soldiers.

I wonder though, if war can ever finish in Afghanistan because so many terrorists retreat into Pakistan and can strike from there at will. I cannot see that this will change and wonder if, in time, politicians will get around to advocating war in Pakistan on the grounds of clearing out terrorists.

In my opinion, the most sensible argument by the writer is the historical one. But when did present-time politicians ever take notice of the lessons of history? If they did, maybe war would not be advocated at any time.

History would teach that the best way to resolve differences before they reach armed conflict is by diplomacy and more diplomacy, after all, that's what we pay diplomats and foreign ministers for. But a mighty flaw lives in this idea - goodwill, or the lack of.

Until politicians and others of less than honourable intentions, realise that innocent lives should never be put at risk on any grounds, nothing will change. It is not good enough to dismiss civilian deaths as colateral damage. In fact, it is amoral.

One feels the abomination of war will always be with us because the types I mention just above will always be with us, as will the lack of good will.

To my mind, the so-called debate on Afghanistan indulged in just recently was as silly as the comments of some about "peak oil" and the financial collapse of the US.

The most sensible comment to come from this indulgence was by Andrew Robb who said that senior military should be held accountable for the results of their decisions which often seem to be in support of politicians rather than what will succeed, or what is right.