Kellie,

You cite the costs of the conflict of the war well and how such money could help the plight of Afghans.

But is that good enough for an astute commentary piece. In the real world, don't opinions also have to weigh up just how successful your strategy will be.

Now if the West gets out, would not the Taliban gain further control in some provinces?

So where will your money go if the Taliban destroy schools and denies women their rights?

How about thinking of consequences about how your ideas will play out?

I do have sympathy for building up societies in the first place, but your ideas may have been much more appropriate 30 years ago before the damage was done when the West abandoned the region.

To suggest that we just throw money there now must also give consideration to just how effective such aid will given there is little law and order established yet

Kellie
I don't dispute that Clinton's talk was full of hot air but will the Afghan MP's talk be any better? Doubt it. Just spin of a differnt kind. There are various reports on Afghanistan you can download and read if you wish to get past the hype and newspaper reporting. However, a realistic time line is about two years. the Americans have just changed strategy. If there is no real improvement soon, then western patientce will be at an end and those Afghan women and chuildren about whom you care so deeply will be left to suffer.

As for spending money on foreign aid one of the major themes in this area is looking for ways to give aid without doing more harm than good. If the Western powers pull out any money given in aid would simply go straight to the Taliban, and probably spent on arms.

Curmudgeon, might I respectfully suggest that if the West pulled out of Afghanistan, the Taliban would no longer have any need to spend money on arms and could devote more of their resources to helping their own people.

David

It costs $50 million to kill one Taliban.The Marfia could do it say $10,000 per Taliban.What the heck,the tax payer foots the bill and war does profit a few scumbags.

I'm swinging from one point of view to the other. From being there to withdrawing.

In my confusion I've come to think we should just pull out and when the taliban allow al quiada to re build those terror bases then we should just do as George Bush originally did after 9/11.

Bomb Afghanistan back to the stone age.

It would be much cheaper and we'd be spared the leftie commentary on how terrible we are for assisting the current elected Afghan regime and how our quest for a modernised and democratic Afghanistan with a reasonable regime of human rights for all, is just so terrible, because it's cost in terms of human life and money is just too high.

Why don't people rant about the cost, in terms of human life and money, of freedom in the west, eastern Europe and many parts of Asia?

It hasn't come cheap. It has cost much to win and costs huge effort, money and lives to maintain!

Hasn't it's cost in human life alone been in the multi millions?

Completely agree with Chris Lewis and Curmudgeon.

VK3AUU...do you even remember the real Taliban?

The war in Afghanistan, right or wrong is now our responsibility.
We took that responsibility when we sent armed troops there. A responsiblity to make sure we don't leave the country in a worse state than before.

I wonder where the "this-must-be-done" group of people who so loudly advocated for the war in the US and to some extent in Australia have gone. War brings death: military and civilian (cowardly termed "collateral damage"), destruction and it costs money, time and resources. And war never goes as planned, just look at all the conflicts in the last century alone.

Now, if only our politicians had the courage to debate the issue of deployments before they are done.

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/