Hi Marko

As usual I disagree with some of your points but heartily agree with others. Taking points in turn.

- Yes the US or Afghan puppet government (using the fiction that NATO forces are now significantly contributing more) will soon request more Australian troops. I understand the substance of "more" centres on additional Italian troops but there are always more tiny, symbolic, non-fighting flag forces that can be seen as “significant” by the gullible.

- the alleged early, 1985, pullout possibility seems a bit thin. In politics many "in-principle decisions" are made and if a forceful intervention by a non-politician was later required this might suggest the Politburo wasn’t convinced. Besides if the US (via jihadis) maintained the pressure (ie didn’t increase it) on the Sovs, wouldn't this simply allow the Soviets to remain in the place they had expended so much blood and treasure?

- citing a report from Sandia National Laboratory report suggests being pointedly selective. This is because Sandia concentrates on nuclear weapon technical and nuclear strategy issues but not counterinsurgency or jihadi issues. Many other institutions carry more authority on Afghanistan eg the Rand Corporation.

- The Taliban had/have their own strategy of conquest unrelated to what the US did/does. The Saudi's with their peculiar system of patronage were/are also major organisers and financiers of the jihadis including AQ for religious and strategic reasons.

- I agree very much that Australia’s 8 years of participation in Afghanistan’s much longer term chaos has less to do with keeping AQ from our doorstep (it actually encourages the homegrown jihadis) and has everything to do with US Alliance Politics. I've even heard that the diggers are in Afghanistan to stop opium growing - similarly spurious.

Pete
http://gentleseas.blogspot.com/

If you take the opium out of afghanastan it would have to be supported by foreign money or be a failed state. So i don't think that is what our boys and girls are doing there.

Lawrence Auster:

"Should we be helping sustain a society and government the fundamental laws and customs of which require the execution of people for distributing a negative opinion about Muhammad? Obviously not, since to do so is not only wrong in itself but means supporting a religious system that seeks to subdue us to the same law...

As I've said over and over, a three week war once every ten years will be infinitely less costly to us than permanent occupation. Other than that, we have no interest in the internal affairs of Afghanistan. We cannot, in the name of democracy, be propping up an Islamic sharia regime which executes people for questioning Islam.

This fundamental contradiction in our present policy is never discussed, and so we continue in our absurd and self-debasing course of "defending democracy" in a sharia country."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009823.html

Diana West:

"Rather than continuing to emphasize the democratization of the Muslim Middle East as our key tool in the war on terror, I will henceforth emphasize the prevention of sharia from reaching the West as our key tool in the war on terror ...

... unregulated immigration of peoples from "sharia states" ... If such an influx continues, Islamic law will be accommodated, adopted and even legislated, at least in some jurisdictions, according to majority will. We know this to be true because such a "sharia shift" is already transforming what sociologists call post-Christian Europe into an increasingly Islamic sphere. If we do not want to see such changes here, we must act. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to amend our laws to bar further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from sharia states."

http://townhall.com/columnists/DianaWest/2006/08/17/what_president_bush_should_say_to_us_part_1