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).