The pundits are struggling to come up with a concise one liner in order to describe "what" exactly will constitute a "victory" in Afghanistan. It is not a simple question (as history shows), many have tried to conquer Afghanistan, but the place is unable to be conquered, why?

Because there is no future for the bulk of the people there, they have no jobs, no security and no hope for the future. That means that they have nothing to lose. In order to impose control over such people requires brutality of the magnitude of that wielded by the Taliban.

So what would constitute a victory, given that a purely military victory is impossible? I suggest that giving the people what they don't have - social, economic and political security, village by village, town by town, region by region, is the ONLY thing that will work. Give the people who live there reason to believe that there is something better in their future than war or tyranny.

Give the people some reason to engage in the Lockean Contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract), because I see nowhere on earth where people live closer to Hobbes' Natural State of Man (where 'life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_nature#Hobbes.27_philosophy) than the reality that exists for the majority of people in Afghanistan. They have no experience of working together to live in harmony and without that, cannot be expected to believe in the possibility.

A purely military victory is out of the question, if it were possible, the USSR would have achieved it. Each part of the society will have to be built from the ground up, it will be a long, long road, but one we cannot afford to avoid traveling, there are no shortcuts. But is the army prepared for this?

We have already stepped off on the wrong foot in trying to impose central government on people who have no real comprehension of what that entails, while consorting with brutish warlords who are little better than the Taliban in the eyes of many who live under their rule.

Simple Custard.

1/ Destroy all poppy fields.
2/ Warn those who re-plant they will be considered the enemy and attacked.
3/ Wait for the poppy growers to resent the West enough to join the Taliban
4/ We then have clearly defined enemies and battle lines

The rest is up to the generals :)

I reckon a victory would be to achieve all the goals they originally set out to achieve.

The most cogent discussion of this that I have read recently has been Sheri Berman's article "From the Sun King to Karzai"

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/65984/sheri-berman/from-the-sun-king-to-karzai

It is behind a pay wall, but well worth the entry fee.

A quick overview can also be found here:

http://issuu.com/barnard/docs/magazine-spring2010/15

"Before Louis XIV, France was also beset by ethnic and regional rivalries and violence, and in the absence of a strong central government, power largely rested with the local lords, many of whom controlled their own armies and militias, and who weren't about to surrender their authority easily".

And the words that Obama least wants to hear right now...

"...it won't be easy - or quick"

But I suspect that a combination of coercion and financial inducements - or violence and bribery, if you prefer - is ultimately the only way in which any form of central control will be successfully implemented.

Of course, this essentially requires them to "sort it out for themselves", while the rest of the world stands back and watches with revulsion.

My view right from the start has been that military intervention by foreign powers in Afghanistan was a massive mistake.

But then, I was only looking as far back as the Russians, rather than the Bourbons.

I don't think any kind 'victory' is possible for the invaders in Afghanistan. They should cut their losses, withdraw and leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable.

Boaz - you seem to be unaware that poppy production in Afghanistan fell to almost zero when the Taliban were in power. Mind you, that's about the only positive thing to be said for that regime.

Yes, I agree the poppy fields have to go, that is the Taliban's source of funding, so every farmer should be paid whatever the Taliban have agreed to pay and then the fields destroyed.

Trouble with that is, most of our "allies" are the Warlords who gain their funding from poppy production too. It was the fact that the Taliban kept them down that made the Taliban preferable to them as rulers.

What is needed is some reason why the average Afghan would want to participate in rebuilding, obviously, that means that every one of them would want a slice of the pie for themselves and for their children. How this is done will decide whether or not the military intervention is successful... It will only be successful if the average Afghani, the average village and the average Town/City, has something to prefer to the Taliban.

That is NOT the corrupt leadership that flourishes now, but it must be something... Maybe it is not just rebuilding, but training? Also building ties between groups of villages? I don't know. I do know the only real hope of success is through something of this sort, or the minute the army is gone, the toughest gang in town will take back over.

It is encouraging them to TRY something other than the rule of the sword/gun. Granted, implementing the same at gunpoint is always going to be tricky, but I think it is a viable goal all the same. It just depends what the people involved see as the priority, dead fighters or viable communities. If it's the former then the similarity between this engagement and the Vietnam war is inescapable as is the likelihood of ultimate failure (not defeat, failure).

1-get rid of the poppy fields

2
Then, as far as I'm concerned, leave them to their own devices.
It seems that Afghan's aversion to Shariah without the Taliban is seriously overplayed, and quite frankly, what better for the rest of the world than for the Wahabis to have a country for themselves again and have less need to hang around everyone else's country because there's no point otherwise?

Decriminalise heroin - thus placing the drug under government control and the Afghanis can earn a living. Heroin IS a very useful drug - why should criminals be the ones to benefit?

Leave Afghanistan.

Im with CJ
We already lost.

There is a consistent theme emerging, which is that "the poppy fields should be destroyed". Which is interesting, because - as CJ pointed out - the last time this occurred was when the Taliban was in control.

"U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan - once the world's largest producer - since banning poppy cultivation last summer." February 15th 2001

http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/index.html

Since then, they lost control.

"With the recent defeat of the Taliban regime by the United States and its Afghan allies, the harsh anti-drug laws imposed by the old Islamic government have fallen by the wayside." December 26th 2001

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/124.html

Note the dates: eleven months apart.

Now it is out of hand.

"Poppy growing is endemic in the countryside, and Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world’s opium." 16th May 2007

http://www.opioids.com/afghanistan/counternarcotics.html

The question is, how can the crops be eradicated?

Saying "the poppy fields must go" is easy. Making it happen, and replacing it as a cash crop with something less disastrous, but equally profitable (tobacco, anyone?), is extremely difficult to achieve.

As a foreign power, there is a difference between militarily invading a country, and destroying the livelihood of a percentage of its citizenry.

The impetus has to come from within...

"The Taliban enforced the ban by threatening to arrest village elders and mullahs who allowed poppies to be grown. Taliban soldiers patrolled in trucks armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers" February 15th 2001

For the US, or the UN, or any other foreign power to duplicate this process would be, quite simply, impossible.

POPPY FIELDS..

"The Taliban enforced the ban by threatening to arrest village elders and mullahs who allowed poppies to be grown."

Yes..and they would not stop at slapping the elder on the wrist..they would cut his blooming head off and mount it where the villagers could receive a very clear object lesson.

That worked... why not we also ? Oh..that's right :) "Human Rights"

The object of the game is not to iradicate poppy fields..but to eradicate the Taliban and the likelyhood of them using Afghanistan as a base from which to take Pakistan and it's Nuclear Arsenal

Let's not forget that people. It's only our suvival at stake here.

Desparate times call for desperate measures.

Destroying the poppy fields a good idea, but in reality a victory won't be had unless every last Taliban member is eliminated which of course is impossible. It is not only the Taliban, but many other corrupt elements including from out side in regard to funding arrangements.

There is no such thing as a victory in Afghanistan unless it is won by the Afghanis themselves. Instituting democracy, education and law enforcement in the short term may help but there are no guarantees when we leave the whole shebang won't fall down in a heap.

Victories cannot always be handed to a people by foreign invaders they have to win it for themselves.

Withdrawal from Afghanistan is long overdue.

I'm with Pericles- the overall consequences of invading Afghanistan were clearly for the worse than the better, and the Taliban were probably the best at keeping the poppy fields down.

And as you said, simply put the Taliban's brutality was the only thing stopping gangsters growing smack, there is no chance we're going to be emulating their behaviour (and quite frankly, I wouldn't want us to).

Then there is the issue of the hostility, the possible exodus of Taliban to other countries and terrorising them as a result of having no haven anymore (I don't feel sorry for them- I feel sorry for the people outside the country that must now deal with them- eg Pakistan).

The nukes in Pakistan are a concern, but they'd still be a concern even if there were no Taliban to try to steal them.
Instead it would be better to try to convince Indian and Pakistan to scale back its arsenal (especially in the north-west where they are within reach)

All in all, it was NOT worth it.

Ok, we have a boatload of negative commentary, any suggestions?

One of Napolean's General's when asked to save a battle, reportedly stated that "this battle is lost, but there is enough time to start another"...

That would be the starting point, if heroin were decriminalized why in god's green earth would we allow Afghanistan to produce it? Tasmanian Farmers produce most of the worlds codeine/morphine and I'm sure Tasmanian Alkaloids would be ready and willing to step up (The little baggies could have the Australian made label & all).

No. We do have to not only rebuild, but find something that the society can use to become economically viable, then get THEM to rebuild (using materials & instructors), get them to learn to police & defend themselves (already happening) and get them to value this, over and above the alternatives.

Quite simply, the Taliban came to power because their malevolent benevolence was preferable to living under the Warlords we've reinstalled. For the Afghan villagers & townspeople, it really is same Sh1t different day. Unless we intend to impose drastic curfews, the equivalent of Sharia law and the rest, we cannot hope to RULE this cesspool, we can help to build something better, but is there enough interest?

Is the "Coalition" of less-than-willing capable of working out an actual exit strategy (a notorious bogeyman to the US - how do we "win"? Dunno, we'll deal with later seems to be the issue) and staying long enough to implement it successfully?

Because if not, I'd really dislike being in the last couple of flights out... The massacre of Elphinstone's Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Elphinstone%27s_Army#General_Elphinstone) provides some idea why...

That would indeed be very practical for handling the heroin trade and Afghani domestic order and security Custard, but that still leaves the problem about the Wahabists.

It is quite probable that the Taliban started annexing parts of Pakistan (the people in which, unlike Afghanistan were clearly much more moderate and less receptive to the new laws they imposed as opposed to the Afghanis, who, for lack of better differentiation simply grew up with it) is a result of us displacing them from Afghanistan.

It might (and take this with a grain of salt because it is an extreme hypothesis) increase pressure on extreme Islamists to try to increase the theocratic influence in their own countries now that the security of national sovereignty of the one wahabist state was taken.

.Leave Afghanistan to their own people.

If the USA and their allies were really interested in the welfare of downtrodden people like many Afghans, they would have invaded Zimbabwe years ago and removed the dreadful Mugabe from power.

.Don't destroy the poppy fields.

Commandeer them for use in making legal narcotics for the world's pharmacies to use as morphine based products.

Maybe this could be a new lucrative market for the Afghan farmers to use as a legitimate employment.

It would be good for that country, get rid of the illegal heroin trade, and supply morphine products for the world.

Clearly this discussion is degenerating to one that revolves around polarised extremes (sigh yet again)both in search of simplistic solutions.
On one side we have the frothing at the mouth paranoid militarists who have the 18th Century fixation that 'might is right'. Regardless of the fact that this is an asymmetrical conflict(where the enemy is impossible to identify in advance as are their tactics.This side doesn't seem to understand that it can't be won by military history and tactics. The people don't see collateral as a necessary evil. It's about survival.

The other side want's to cut and run, let the Afghans sort it out themselves bloodbath included. These people tend to forget that human nature abhors a vacuum and the only thing sucked in is chaos and EXTREMIST opportunism. By that the ensuing chaos would simply become fertile ground for the MINORITY extremists to train etc, to extend their fundamentalist carnage.

Both sides are looking for a political over simplistic magic bullet.
THERE SIMPLY ISN'T one.

We need cool rational decisions and actions.

Common sense and history should show a way.
i.e. Take note of the PNG colonial solution.
it existed in two parts.
remove the targets
Don't train the Afghan police/etc in Afghanistan.
Forcing the Taliban to oppress and thereby alienate their base support.
Post the enforcers into non home tribal areas. This reduces defections and if supervised/trained correctly defuse/break down the ethnic/tribal fixations.

Sure the idea needs work but it can't be any sillier than what is occurring now

There is no magic bullet, that is certain. The use of a "Native Police" Approach (as done by Dalrymple in NQ & adopted in South Africa as the basis of Apartheid), using people from other ethnic groups to police areas, may have some hope of success, it would clearly remove the corruption that is endemic (between the leaders and the putative enforcers of the law).

One of the major problems is the fact that "Law & Order" have broken down in the absence of the Taliban, it always amazes me, when 'we' go in and boot out a despotic, vicious regime, we seem to proceed under the assumption that once the nasty rulers are gone everything will be sweetness & light, without regard for why their laws and the enforcement thereof had to be so harsh and brutal. Simply put, without fundamentally changing the society, we cannot hope to rule it any more gently than the Taliban did.

The poppies have to go suzeonline, they are a major cause of the corruption, it pervades the place. Plus, Tasmanian Poppies are available more cheaply with less drama.

Let's try and, without the hyperbole, look at what is necessary to build a society from the ground up, so as to allow it to become, in the long-term: economically, socially and politically viable (I include policing & defence in that).

How to empower the inhabitants of each village, one at a time, to look at their lives and see a better way forward. Yeah, there is serious problems on the ground, the death toll will continue to rise because the vested interests will not lie down and play dead.

But unless we work out a sane, rational plan, which takes into account the realities on the ground, there is no hope of a better future for the region.

As to the Wahabists, they have merely been sidelined to the mainly 'tribal enclaves' that blur the border between Pakistan & Afghanistan. These areas have NEVER been successfully bought under the control of anyone (even local warlords), thus they are fertile breeding grounds for insurrection.

There needs to be a clear understanding of what is needed. Here are some suggestions:

The people in each village/town must be brought into the proposed scheme, the building of infrastructure, the rebuilding of economic endeavors, the removal of corrupt politicians and those who support the Taliban.

Don't try and IMPOSE central rulers over the regions, cities, towns & villages, this has been tried time and time again, a has failed miserably each time.

Let the community start participating in rebuilding itself & its economy, then let those who are willing to "actually" participate (not just pay lip service) have the bulk of the rewards for having so done, ie. train them to run the services, the council, the water treatment plant, collect the taxes, etc.

Those who decide to opt out of the process are in likelihood those who favor the return of the Taliban, this will leave them isolated.

The power is then vested in the hands of those who, lacking a vested interest in the status quo, assisted the rebuilding... So at a stroke, we have sifted the wheat from the chaff and rebuilt not only the town/village, but found the people to run it.

I agree, the police should be from other areas, at least to start with, and they should be trained either here, the UK or the USA. Their training should be undertaken by the AFP if done here and extreme measures taken to drive into them the consequences of corruption.

The poppy fields are not actually viable, unless for the production of illegal heroin, Tasmanian farmers grow a better product for less money. What they can grow is wheat, etc. which is what they grew under the Taliban. Those who refuse, can be paid for their farms and then forcibly evicted.

The idea is to slowly build the country into the country we NEED it to be, where there are people with too much to lose to allow for a return to the bad old days, but who are willing and able to defend their new-found prosperity, against both bandits and insurgents.

Custard and others
Most commenters don't seem to understand , “conditions on the ground”.

Consider this typical scenario:
-You are a poor peasant with a family to support.
-A far away government with little immediate local support, (dominated by foreigners).
-Are telling You to grow a cash crop that returns you say maybe $200 per year.

-You have a LOCAL war lord etc. *telling* your village to grow poppies at a guaranteed $1000 per year or else.
-The majority of the village are and they're doing way better than you....can you blame them?
-In many cases the nearest thing to law and order are the Warlords not the far away military.

It is hard for these "real battlers" (see the lowest level on MASLOW'S pyramid) to see the government as much more than a marauding Plague of crows .....
-They come, destroy the above means of survival,
potentially create a lot of death and mayhem,
make promises they can't keep, then fly off.

The war lord comes back and punishes those who are helpful to the govt
- helps those who don't.
The only answer in my mind is give the people something better and provide the means to defend it. They want the same as us order and predictability.

Keep in mind these are REAL SURVIVORS they will do what they HAVE to survive. They can't pick up and leave no body else wants them. Nor are countries prepared to support them properly.

If for example we started shipping very large living standard improvements to them. There would be a political backlash from the great unwashed public here. "We should help ourselves first", just look at the complaints for providing asylum seekers a reasonable start here.
So we waste Billions on the patching not the Millions on a Suite of solutions....it's politically easier.

It seems for people complaining about magic bullet solutions aren't doing so well either, and seem to be basing their assumption that if we shell out the billions needed to build up a country with virtually no valuable resources minus heroin and little prospects of starting industries to support much infrastructure, they're going to magically transform into a moderate, secular super-nice nation where extremism will magically disappear because it can't *possibly* exist in the absence of wealth (assuming we WILL be giving that).

On the assumption of course, that a foreign power than bombed them and stripped away the only form of order they ever had, is telling them they must forgo the one thing in the country that actually makes money to plant something WE like is going to be met with joyful gratitude for removing the government that WE didn't like.

Seriously, unlike most of you people who disagree I've actually put some more thought into this.
Without the Taliban governing Afghanistan we have had:
-A still extremist, now lawless country
-An increased heroin trade
-A diaspora of Islamic extremists looking elsewhere to set up shop
-Oh and 'nature abhors a vacuum' indeed- in this case, the absence of a country for extreme adherents of Wahabism. What now?

Seriously, stop trying to make something better of the situation- accept that we were wrong, we stuffed up, and our continuing colonialistic 'lets make them better' attitude is making us enemies and making the rest of the world less safe. Get out, let the Taliban take control, less of two evils (and let's be clear, there ARE only two solutions- the alternative is basically NOT doing it and hoping some idiotic scheme will work). Our efforts have only made the place much worse, and your response is we just aren't trying hard enough or paying enough.

I don't recall saying that the Army wasn't trying hard enough, I am asking what it can do better.

If the automatic response to removing the poppies is that the Warlords/Taliban enforcers come on down, then that is fine. Predictable responses = premeditated murder/ie. ambushes by the military.

Given that those who are going to suffer worst from the visit of the enforcers (from either camp) are much more likely to inform if it is their own neck on the line, the lines of communication have just opened.

Most of Afghanistan consisted of subsistence farming communities before this all started and probably will again once it is finished. They make no more from poppies than they do from wheat/rice, it is just that they have no choice in what to grow.

They are instructed to grow poppies by the Warlords/Taliban, who agree to take the entire consignment, often paying in advance. This way they get paid twice for the one crop and get away with it. That should stir some greedy little hearts.

It also ensures that the Taliban/warlords are caught out in the open, in force, when the time comes for them to punish the 'collaborators'... As the biggest problem to date is that they have only ever come out when they felt like it (ie. when it suited them), this would be a godsend to the ADF, the USMC, etc.

The restoration of the agrarian economy, is probably going to be the easiest part of the rebuilding. Provide seed & fertilizer, destroy ANY and ALL poppies & poppy seed discovered. Anyone with poppy seed, or found growing poppies after that is dealt with by the local government.

That part is simple enough, the difficulty is that we have aligned ourselves with some unsavory elements in order to expel the Taliban and there may be some unwelcome suprises in store for them. Ah well.

What are the signs of victory in Afghanistan?

1. Freedom for women (no male control).
2. Freedom of music (listening and producing).
3. Freedom of association between men and women.
4. Freedom of religion.
5. Roads safe to travel by ordinary, unarmed people.

I am in no position to discuss the tactics, but we should support and pray for the success of our soldiers who are bravely fighting for those most worthy goals.

Yep, thought so, many people here just want to think about what they can handle and don't bother to even read anyone else except the people that shoot the easiest two-sentence rants for them to deconstruct- anyone better is carefully avoided by these people.

Yuyutsu

>>> but we should support and pray for the success of our soldiers who are bravely fighting for those most worthy goals <<<

We can continue to bomb Afghanistan "back into the stone-age" but we cannot bomb it into peace.

I am in full agreement with Examinator's POV here. Heroin is a useful drug (as I have stated previously) we can make use of it by paying the Afghanis for their crops, this would eliminate the middle men (Taliban & organised criminals), boost the economy, wrest power from the overlords and support the locals.

But don't let common sense get in the way of warfare, too bloody obvious.

"We can continue to bomb Afghanistan "back into the stone-age""

For someone already worse-off than in the stone age, this would prove to be a boon. At least in the stone-age, one can roam around as they please, hunting and gathering and dying only of natural causes.

Of course poppy/heroin tactics are welcome if they can help, but that could only part of the solution, as I don't believe that fanatic Islamic die-hards will just give in without battle.

They won't give in without a battle, the best thing that can be done is to let them start it, out in the open, where the foolishness of their approach can be demonstrated.

Yeah, opiates are useful drugs, Tasmanian opiates provide the world's legal supply and are more than capable of increasing production without the corruption and bloodshed that they cause in Afghanistan. There is no way known that the place will ever change while the poppies remain, no way, no how. There are too many opportunities for the corrupt/greedy to intercept/misappropriate the drugs between farm and market.

For god's sake, the 'enforced' changeover to poppy-farming has left the place incapable of maintaining its own food needs. The farmers, given the correct combination of incentive & disincentive (2nd payment for the poppy crop they've already been paid for, destruction thereof, then harsh penalties for growing/possessing poppies or poppy seeds) will be rather simply moved back to wheat/etc. production.

That is of little difficulty, in practice... What is difficult is to remove the Warlords/Taliban thugs so that the place(s) can become socially and politically viable. Like I said, take volunteers to assist in the rebuilding and reward them, not those who refuse to take part, for having done so with training and jobs in the reconstructed community.

That will marginalise the non-compliant members of the community, those who back either the Warlords/Taliban, neither of whose needs/wants would be served by stabilising the region(s).

Marginalization does in fact work as a tactic, isolate the thugs and wait for them to respond. The fact that they are isolated will assist the Armed Forces to recognise/identify them, which will assist in targeting them.

I am bemused by the tone here, its either "all too hard" or "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out", surely we have something more to offer than that?

"That is of little difficulty, in practice... What is difficult is to remove the Warlords/Taliban thugs so that the place(s) can become socially and politically viable FROM A WESTERN POINT OF VIEW."
Fixed your post for you.

"That will marginalise the non-compliant members of the community, those who back either the Warlords/Taliban, neither of whose needs/wants would be served by stabilising the region(s)."
Then what? You keep refusing to address this point. The Taliban aren't going to magically disappear into fairy dust if they lose popular support (putting aside they never needed it in the first place). Nor, for that matter, do they NEED to stay in Afghanistan (which anyone paying attention to Pakistani events over the past few years will happily tell you).

"Marginalization does in fact work as a tactic, isolate the thugs and wait for them to respond. The fact that they are isolated will assist the Armed Forces to recognise/identify them, which will assist in targeting them." Because it's worked SO well every other time we tried holding other countries and designating peoples for marginalizing.

"I am bemused by the tone here, its either "all too hard" or "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out", surely we have something more to offer than that?"
I'm bemused by the fact that these two assumptions are all you can perceive.

What else are you offering? Withdrawal? Well that equals let god sort 'em out for mine. I'm not saying they have to become a Western Democracy, that is your spin not mine mate.

Afghanistan has the opportunity to become every bit as peaceful as maybe, India or Pakistan. No, the Taliban and the bandits/Warlords aren't going to turn into fairy dust, dust maybe.

Why are you so sure that the people, given the first opportunity in their history, to be rid of their feudal overlords and/or the Taliban/Mujahadeen or even the Soviet Empire, wouldn't take to democracy the same as their ethnic cousins in the rest of Asia?

Or is it that you think they are incapable of it (the same old white mans burden argument (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/kipling.html)?)? Well, I dunno... I'd have to say that to endure what they have endured over the last 30 years, they are tough, determined, inventive and fearless, there's some awesome character traits there.

Can that be harnessed? Can we give them the opportunity to put that to good use? I think we'd be mugs not to try, I mean after all, that is "ostensibly" the reason we went there, it'd be a shame to see the Taliban or somebody else waltz back in when we leave... All they really need, given the fact that they are farming now, is security, training and help. Or shall we just send aid for the next 100 years?

Yes, I AM saying "cut and run". Leave the place and let the Taliban resume control after negotiating with them that they must fully withdraw from Pakistan and ensure the Afghani opium trade is ceased (such a place has little guarantee of NOT working with mafia groups). THis is simply because aside from all of our attempts to improve the place blowing up in our faces (complete with a corrupt vote-rigging government putting on a spectacularly poor job of selling the so-called democracy the rest of the middle east accuse of- not to mention the amount of drug-runners and warlords in the government and candidacy), and of all the places the Taliban have been (including where they are NOW- hint, not Afghanistan in case you are actually still wondering), Afghanistan was the only place where any positives have come from them being around.

You have provided no evidence nor even practical solutions that convince me the place will change, and the best answer you could give me about the Taliban's fate was they'd simply disappear into 'normal' dust with no explanation how (let me guess, we'll just find em all, right?)- shows how little attention you have been paying. Not to mention you have given ZERO consideration to the consequences outside Afghanistan which we have helpfully provided.

My problem is we greatly DE-creased world security and spread the initial damage that happened under old Afghanistan over a much wider area. And we had almost 10 years to make a positive change.

So "cut & run" (which actually equals both "its all too hard" and "kill em all and let god sort 'em out") is your option?

Jeez, that must have took a lot of thought.. I mean, what a complex, well considered plan that one is...

We are there now, why exactly aren't we trying something, anything, to try and improve the lot of the average Afghan?

We are not involved in the Hamid Khazi government, that is the Americans and you are right, it is the most squalid, corrupt government that has been propped up from outside, since, well the UN propped up the Palestinian Authority.

It has done nothing to build/rebuild infrastructure or undertake any planning for the social, political or economic stability/feasibility of any of the regions/villages, it has just taken the money to stay in power.

The average Taliban supporter in Afghanistan, supports the Taliban for one major reason, law & order, and for a better deal than is available under the warlords.

Show them, actually deliver, that the same is available without resorting to Sharia law, and then we have a chance. I can offer no proof, we have never bothered to even try this out at home (on the isolated aboriginal communities), but SOMETHING has to work (our own history tells us this - sectarian violence, religious intolerance and violence, etc. aren't that far back in our history).

How sad, people argue purely from an unwillingness to consider alternatives, sure, you have the upper hand, laziness and intolerance always does.

Personally I thought going in there was a mistake, it is a 'tarbaby', but we are there now and in order to get out with any credibility whatsoever, we are going to have to try something new.

>>> My problem is we greatly DE-creased world security and spread the initial damage that happened under old Afghanistan over a much wider area. And we had almost 10 years to make a positive change. <<<

Completely agree. To those who believe eliminating the poppy fields is easier than controlling them, please have a rethink. By controlling the fields other cash crops can be introduced and the Afghanis will be able to make a living - isn't that what the invasion was all about? Freeing Afghanis? As for the threat of drug cartels - well they are a bigger threat now, at least their influence would be minimised. I get the feeling that because there is no easy solution there are those who think that continuing what has failed to work for a decade is better than nothing. It is worse than nothing.

Yeah, that's right, self-determination with a little assistance is way too hard, let's put it in that basket and ignore it - oh we'll send aid, but we can hardly expect a predominantly agrarian economy to transition from an agrarian economy overnight...

The price paid per field of poppies does not exceed greatly what the farmers would be paid for wheat, which is needed as it currently bought into the country as aid.

Leaving the poppies in place leaves the greed & corruption in place. Let them go back to growing wheat and other crops, and punish those who try and make them grow poppies.

Yeah, I know, muslim Countries far too difficult to try and make them work (http://www.theotheriraq.com/)... We just have to let them stay in the dark ages, ignore their rulers abuses of human rights and feel sorry for them...

That's right, I'm sorry, the muslims are simply too backward to ever make a go of anything aren't they?

I mean, that is what people here are effectively (if not openly) saying... That the muslim people of Afghanistan are INCAPABLE of adapting to the world as it is, we should just leave them in a backwater and let them run free? Perish the thought we'd ever try and teach them anything or help them along the path to self-determination...

Yet, if I said the same about the West Bank or Gaza I'd be pilloried and abused from both right and left. Oh yeah, Israel is involved there isn't it? Still, we can't expect to much of them... Read up on Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. Two Moslem countries that HAVE shared the oil wealth almost equitably, have instituted rights (actually universal suffrage existed in Azerbaijan before England), etc.

Maybe there is some hope? But let's squander it in favor of doing nothing... Much, much easier really, it is. Let's leave them with the poppies and the warlords, don't worry about their standard of living, it ain't our problem is it? We'll just keep sending them wheat while they send us heroin (well, they can't exactly grow both can they?)..

It seems that many have difficulty understanding beyond their own limited "indoctrinated/experiential" perspectives.

Some seem to have the attitude that 'these' people are fundamentally different from 'us'. Sadly this is a *learned* ATTITUDE.

I would defy others to show me how the Afghans are FUNDAMENTALLY different from how we would be if in the same untenable situation.

They simply want stability (some form predictable Law & Order) in which to run their lives. If that means Sharia law and that is the only viable/ understood alternative then so be it. While from our Western middle class perspective it is harsh, even primitive it is non the less provides the basic predictability.

From their perspective our system is clearly too easily corrupted/circumvented. Keep in mind that literacy and understanding of other systems are either extremely limited or non existent.

Democracy etc.are learned concepts. Integral in these are a enforceable set of checks and balances. Faith or allegiance to such concepts are generated after the first couple of levels in Maslow's Pyramid of *needs* are the norm.

I find comments about "*their* greed" arrogant both myopic and hypercritical that is born from an underlying concept of *they* should be grateful for our largess.

IMHO Afghan if winnable ( stable govt) but NOT by the strategies *as implemented*. It is too little, too militaristic, too ad hoc

Oh spare us the paternalistic colonialistic attitude custard, because that's all it is. WE don't like the way they are, so we should help these poor people be better! (although despite all their neighbours managing to evolve into moderate democracies despite their own adversities, the Afghanis seem to be sticking to fundamentalism even without the Taliban).

Also, you seem to have been suckered into the "Charlie Wilson's War" thinking that if you (an outside power) just build hospitals, schools and modern luxury, religious fundamentalism will just go away from the people's minds. Try studying the real world for five minutes (although you might need 20) and let me know what you learned.

And don't try to smear the racist attitude on me- because I'm comparing other countries in the Middle East against Afghanistan. Including Iraq, which has been faring considerably better even withOUT our help despite its worse circumstances.

And for the fourth time, you ignore the other issues I and many others have raised, namely the negative side-effects that will pour out from attempts to 'make the place better', which leads me to conclude that you can't comprehend them. And worse, you still cling to your lame solutions that we already explained won't work, met with the equivalent of "But I'm SURE they'll work, you just need to believe!"

Last chance to answer my questions Custard. Not whinge about me having a bad attitude, not pretending I'm really about something else, not avoiding it and pretending it's not really there, answer them.
The questions are, in words even you will understand:
What about the Taliban now moving to neighbouring countries and oppressing the people there (who are actually moderate as opposed to Shariah-lite)?
What about the vaccuum left from the only Shariah country towards fundamentalists around the world?
HOW do you plan on getting rid of these, along with the Karzai government Custard?
Also please do cite any past successes of creating the global movements required to fully address all the problems, or even cases of successful domestic change on a country like Afghanistan.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE THAT THE TALIBAN (OR OTHER EXTREMISTS) WHERE NOT ALREADY IN PAKISTAN? (THAT IS WHERE THEY CAME FROM CLOWN)

What? You don't have any? Would that be because the region you refer to has never been under effective governmental control in the History of the Raj, India or Pakistan itself?

Please, go read up on some history - especially the bit dealing with the breakup of the Raj, the demise of Elphinstone's Army (in the Khyber pass which connects NE Afghanistan with NW Pakistan), the wars between Pakistan & India, the training of the Mujahadeen in Pakistan (in Wahabist schools funnily enough - isn't it strange that many think they are new inventions?) to fight the Soviets...

Get off your little trip mate, the Wahabist Schools existed long before the Taliban takeover (from the Mujahadeen & Warlords, who in turn took over from the Soviets). They aren't new and exist (a) because of the fact that the Pakistani Government has lacked the will and capacity to deal with its NW Region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pakhtunkhwa), the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and (b) because of the Wahabist fundamentalists who are funded by Saudi Arabia.

Examinator, I agree (unusually), that there is hope - provided the military can secure the area long enough for the reconstruction to progress, there is hope. Unfortunately, security is necessary, otherwise the job would be so much easier. In terms of democracy, I'm not at all sure they are ready to embrace it yet (they are just emerging from a feudal past), maybe in the future, but democracy is the least of the concerns here.

The major difficulty lies with the US, are they willing to try to deal with the locals as equals or try to lord it over them (as they are doing with Hamid Khazi). Time will tell. Despite that, I honestly believe that the British and Australian Armies have the willpower and ability to work with the locals, to help them rebuild, convert back to a self-sustaining economy and govern themselves, one village, town, city or region at a time. It is a long road.

Simple, indeed they have always been there- yet they never started taking over and governing places until recently- by a strange coincidence, even in the early years of the war in Afghanistan all sources stated that the Taliban were retreating east to the mountain ranges in Pakistan and over the border!
So, are you going to tell me that this is purely a coincidence and not a diaspora setting up a new shop?
(ignoring the point that occupying Afghanistan does not impair the survival of the Taliban).

Now that I've pointed out a massive flaw in the whole "getting "rid" of the Taliban" argument (again), and YOU established that nature abhors a vacuum, and you also established that most citizens come from a feudalist background and "aren't ready to embrace democracy", I'm waiting for you to try to connect the situation now, as WE are making it, to the better one we're supposedly striving for WHILE addressing all of the wider problems we caused by invading and occupying it.

I'm not holding much hope though, as your answer to the heroin trade is "I'm sure all the heroin farmers are actually working under a warlord for a pittance, they'd surely get the same money out of wheat!"
What makes you think there aren't any farmers doing it for themselves and selling it directly? On that note, why exactly would the Taliban still have to go around and setting examples if they displaced all the warlords?

I did not support the ground invasion, but given that we are there now, it is necessary to try and make the best of a bad lot.

The Australian Army has actually had some success, with at least one village refusing to aid the Taliban. Of course, this is while the Aussies are next door, but what is needed is to build upon this.

Unfortunately, given that the fighters are, on the whole, imported via Pakistan (ie. not local), and take extreme measures against anyone who assists coalition forces, the task is a LOT harder than it should be.

The easiest place to start is the farming communities, convert them from poppies to wheat/etc., with special assistance including basic technological and/or farming improvements, seed, etc. increasing productivity, yield and profit.

Rebuild bridges, roads, etc. with the help of the local people (checking the background of each). Reward those who help with positions of trust within the community, thus removing those with vested interests and/or links with the Taliban/Warlords from power.

This is a long road and the price paid already demands that we stick to our guns whilst ever a "win" is possible. In this case, a "win" means equipping the locals with the ability to govern & police themselves, to operate a local economy to provide food, shelter and basic facilities for their families and to do so in relative safety.

That is how we win their trust, once we have that, more may be possible. I honestly see no reason why these people are incapable of adopting realistic changes to their lives, especially where those changes will benefit them (unless they are acting in bad faith).

I honestly wonder, exactly who do you think the farmers sell the opium to? The trade (and the prices) are controlled by the Warlords/Taliban... Whether or not the farmers act on their own behalf or not is irrelevant (imagine an Aussie farmer pointing out that they'd make more out of growing pot rather than wheat, what an excuse!).

PS Love the negative response(s) to suggesting we actually try to make a difference.

King Hazza, I answered your question, please start either arguing like an adult (which requires that you move on from a question if it is answered sufficiently, rephrasing it if it is not (NB The correct answer rarely comes from continuing to ask the wrong question) or accepting it if it covers the point you wanted clarified) or I will not discuss things with you (I ignore several on here, it is not an idle threat).

The Taliban came from Pakistan (as did the Mujahadeen), they came from the essentially lawless NW Area of Pakistan which has never been under Government Control (the Pakistani Army is making vast inroads into now however).

Are you saying that the "taking over" by the Taliban/Mujahadeen of this area of Pakistan is a new thing?

It isn't, the opinions of the "journalists" that you see on TV to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Wahabist Schools in this region are famous for producing both the Mujahadeen & the Taliban since the 1980's at least, so they can hardly be new, nor can the fact that these groups are in and control the area.

The Taliban did retreat to Pakistan, it is where they came from how that is a "diaspora" setting up shop is unnecessary to discuss.

What is this massive "FLAW" that you pointed out again?

That there need be some form of local administration? I've dealt with that repeatedly. I agree, but central government is not the answer in my book, these people may be able to handle local democracy (with some difficulty - remember, they are used to resolving ALL disagreements with firearms), but regional and national politics are well in the future for them.

Try reading other peoples posts and actually looking at what they have written before jumping up and down. It is just good manners and common decency to do so.

While we are about that, could you please try and make sure your points are clearer? They are very difficult to divine from what you have written.

Sorry Custard, but my points are phrased clearly, and I actually have read every post.

Firstly, the US strategists stated themselves that the Taliban in Afghanistan had begun to move out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. About a year ago there was a conflict in which Taliban forces started annexing towns in Pakistan and enforcing Shariah on them. It's not a huge stretch of logic that maybe the Taliban in Afghanistan fled to Pakistan, bulked up the forces, and to preserve themselves annexed multiple new territories by force. Not to mention the fact that they are there ANYWAY (and in Pakistan, completely untouchable by us).
THAT is the flaw- that getting rid of the Taliban is impossible.

Now, again with the "wheat" argument. Wheat isn't worth remotely the money. The farmers KNOW they can get more out of smack than a common grain, and US killing off their chance at the big time and making them plant a cheap crop that WE would prefer is likely going to stir more of the hatred that the middle east hold for US in our 'interference'.

And no, you did not answer any of my questions:
I won't bother bringing up your own 'vacuum' argument at the moment nor the wider impacts on the Middle East, as you clearly cannot and will not answer. For now, explain two simple things:
-What are we going to do about the Taliban?
-HOW are we going to improve Afghanistan into a secure lawful place? You've only given simplistic concepts of 'working hard', dividing the country into regional govts (huge political ramifications and ignores security issues). Are we going to introduce compulsory secular schooling? How?

Also "I did not support the ground invasion, but given that we are there now, it is necessary to try and make the best of a bad lot. " is an incredibly poor excuse to stay there, that implies nothing but we HAVE to do SOMETHING out of pure guilt and need to justify causing the problem in the first place.
That's not even logic- that's blind obsession for redemption.

There's an interesting article on this topic in today's Crikey.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/06/15/afghanistan-another-30-years-puts-us-in-for-the-very-long-haul/

After reading it, I'm even more convinced that Australia should cut its losses and get the hell out of Afghanistan ASAP.

Interesting article CJ, and I agree.

I'm amazed at Grattan's tasteless statements (which I read in the Herald)- ignoring the simple question of WHY we need to keep sucking up to the US at the cost of our soldiers (the commentators are probably just too embarrassed to try to make a case out of "big mean Indonesia wanting to invade us for some reason" excuse).