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.