Sorry Chris, I appreciate that you were not implying all Pushun's were terrorists - but I can see how my post does kind of say that. However I think when you say

"I am arguing that the seeds are there for many to become terrorists if radical elements cement their domination there."

It does present us with a lot of different "there"s that could also be said to qualify. Why then do we focus on Afghanistan, and is the threat sufficient to justify the loss of life, both from Australian soldiers, and also the Afghani civilians who are so frequently killed in the fighting?

Mickey,

The Afghanistan situation is indeed horrendous. Unfortunately, I see much carnage and horror there for years to come no matter what policy scenario emerges.

Yes tragically I have a agree.

I do worry however that Australia's involvement, particularly our military involvement is not necessarily making a positive contribution.

I don't have much faith in the government we are trying to maintain/instil in the country. But I can see no particularly obvious or correct path to follow.

I suppose this brings me back to your article. I worry that the fear of terrorism, in your case in the guise of radicalised Pushtun's, but also often expressed in terms of Al Quaeda, becomes a smoke screen to justify a continued military involvement. I don't think this case has been made.

Would it not be better to provide aid and facilitate development for the Pushtun people as a way of working against radicalism through more soft power?

Continued military involvement seems to work counter to this by providing an easily identifiable occupying power.

Mickey,

You said "Would it not be better to provide aid and facilitate development for the Pushtun people as a way of working against radicalism through more soft power?"

This is why i put in a couple of paragraphs mentioning their plight.

We have some big decisions to make in coming decades? There is always a cost if you want to prevent turmoil. You either react to a disaster, or you try and prevent them occurring in the first place.

I hope to take up this theme in my next article which will focus on the burden the US has in meeting a number of security needs around the world.

Chris -

With all your agreement with comments from myself and other posters about the difficulty of military success and the possibility that there are negative impacts of having a military presence in Afghanistan, it is hard to reconcile the final sentence of your article:

With no sane nation wanting Pakistan also to collapse, with the US publications even suggesting that the Shanghai Cooperation Organization get involved, Australians too need to be informed of all the risks in the face of silly arguments that the US alone should be left to carry the burden.

It doesn't seem from your posts that you think the arguments are silly at all.

ericc,

No, I will confess that it is hard for myself to avoid some contradiction with my attempt to both promote and provoke debate.

I do not feel there are obvious straight answers in terms of leaving or staying, but do believe that support has to be given to the US given the current situation.

This does not mean i merely support the use of force to contain a situation.

I have always been a realist, but have always considered softer policy options as of crucial importance.

Question for world, as i stated in previous post, is to prevent or address conflict in the future at a time when Western budgets are coming under greater pressure.

Also, article was about present rather than highlighting mistakes of past.

Hope this makes sense.