Afghanistan war is just beginning: report

[radwan21]

THE Taliban has seriously rejoined the fight in Afghanistan, an NGO security group said in a report that concluded the country was at the beginning of a war, not the end of one.

The Afghanistan NGO Safety Office (ANSO) said the Taliban's "easy departure" in 2001, when a US-led invasion drove them from power, was more of a strategic retreat than an actual military defeat.

"A few years from now, 2007 will likely be looked back upon as the year in which the Taliban seriously rejoined the fight and the hopes of a rapid end to conflict were finally set aside by all but the most optimistic," ANSO said.

About 1980 civilians were killed in 2007 - half by insurgents and the rest almost equally by soldiers or criminal groups, the group said.

Abductions and killings were likely to escalate this year, with growing links between insurgents and criminal gangs increasing the threat, ANSO said.

It said the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which is helping the government fight insurgents, is "in fact just now entering a period of broad and deep conflict, the outcomes of which are far from certain."

ISAF may number about 41,000 soldiers but "realistically" could not have more than 7000 for combat, with the rest mostly support staff or prevented from fighting because of national restrictions, the group said.

The size of the Taliban force was unknown, but estimates ranged from 2000 to 20,000.

"There would not appear to be any capacity within ISAF to stop or turn back anticipated AOG (armed opposition groups) expansion," the report said.

"In simple terms, the consensus amongst informed individuals at the end of 2007 seems to be that Afghanistan is at the beginning of a war, not the end of one."



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...005961,00.html

Fixed the link - in future, please use the url tags, otherwise the forum software automatically shortens the pasted link, rendering it as useless as a solid whoopee cushion

[Keltoi]

We've heard this same story every year since the fall of the Taliban.

[Cognescenti]

Wait...do you mean to tell me that some of the Taliban are still alive?

[Trumble]

About 1980 civilians were killed in 2007 - half by insurgents and the rest almost equally by soldiers or criminal groups, the group said.

So in other words the Taliban managed to kill twice as many civilians as Afghan and ISAF soldiers did? Considering they would have had to have done it close up and dirty rather than bombs dropped from planes onto wedding parties, artillery and such don't the Tali-fans here find that rather disturbing?

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[AvarAllahNoor]

It's been about 4 years now? or is it more? I doubt they'll actually control the whole of Afghanistan, it's impossible.

[The_Prince]

the taliban will never be defeated, why? because many afghans think and believe like the taliban, so lets assume all 20,000 taliban fighters are killed in 1week of mass bombings it wouldnt end anything, by the next month, and next year they wud simply be replaced by another 20,000.

this is something westerners fail to realize and something they cant understand. not ALL afghanis want a western liberal democratic system, heck even the supposed 'moderate' afghanis who oppose the taliban arent up for this liberal western democratic system.

so this 'war' will never actually end....the taliban will never be defeated, what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment and become a legalized political party, which is what the afghani goverment keep trying to do.......

[Omari]

the taliban will never be defeated, why? because many afghans think and believe like the taliban, so lets assume all 20,000 taliban fighters are killed in 1week of mass bombings it wouldnt end anything, by the next month, and next year they wud simply be replaced by another 20,000.

this is something westerners fail to realize and something they cant understand. not ALL afghanis want a western liberal democratic system, heck even the supposed 'moderate' afghanis who oppose the taliban arent up for this liberal western democratic system.

so this 'war' will never actually end....the taliban will never be defeated, what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment and become a legalized political party, which is what the afghani goverment keep trying to do.......

Agreed.
And if the GOA let them have a legalized political party I think this will prove to be successfull, considering the fact that taliban want power.

[snakelegs]

ahsan28 said it all on another thread

How can you defeat a foe who can destroy million-dollar machines with devices that can be built off the Internet for about the cost of a pizza, especially if that foe doesn't particularly worry about dying?

answer: you can't.

[The_Prince]

ahsan28 said it all on another thread

answer: you can't.

nothing a few nukes cant fix ;) ehem.

[ahsan28]

what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment .

Both options are possible, but I personally think, Talibans will go for the ist consideration, as they have already rejected becoming part of the existing slave govt.

[Gator]

Since the taliban have shifted tactics from straight up fighting to more of an insurgency they definitely can last longer as a threat. Counter-insurgency is a not purely military and long long process, generational almost. I think the US is going to be in Afghanistan for a minimum of 25 years, and in some form or another for a long time to come.

[Cognescenti]

.....

so this 'war' will never actually end....the taliban will never be defeated, what will happen is 2 things, either the taliban completly win, because USA and nato wont be staying forever, and i doubt the afghan goverment and the thugs they hire will be able to defend anything. or the taliban will simply become a part of the afghani goverment and become a legalized political party, which is what the afghani goverment keep trying to do.......

Saints preserve us (not the Shiite kind)! I find myself agreeing with the poster formerly known as Prince. He is right. The Taliban never will sign a peace treaty. The goal must be that those who agree with the Taliban come to understand that violence will not achieve their goal. Potential Talibs are being trained in the madrassas of Pakistan as we speak.

As much as the hyperbole on this forum would suggest, the "West" will never accept the Russian strategy of just flattening any village that offers support to the Taliban. Unless the next President takes his or her eye off the ball, however, neither will they accept an Afghanistan as haven for murdering nutjobs frozen in some long-past century (not to be disclosed)

[Keltoi]

Since the taliban have shifted tactics from straight up fighting to more of an insurgency they definitely can last longer as a threat. Counter-insurgency is a not purely military and long long process, generational almost. I think the US is going to be in Afghanistan for a minimum of 25 years, and in some form or another for a long time to come.

Yes the U.S. and others will be there for a long time. At this rate all that is needed is a small quick strike force. Something the Australians excel at, which is why I wish they were given a larger role in Afghan operations. The U.S. has been slower to adapt to a long-term insurgency. The usual U.S. method is to stand around and take needle pricks until the big giant gets mad enough to stomp around, killing everything that moves in a 25 mile radius. That is effective in sending the Taliban running for the hills for a month or two, but it isn't all that effective in eliminating the source.

[ahsan28]

Asymmetric warfare is applied, when there is no comparison between the two rival forces. In other words, when a weaker side knows that they are helpless and don't have the means to initiate suitable responses, they are compelled to resort to non-traditional and unconventional weapons and strategy in order to obtain an advantage over a stronger opponent.

[snakelegs]

Asymmetric warfare is applied, when there is no comparison between the two rival forces. In other words, when a weaker side knows that they are helpless and don't have the means to initiate suitable responses, they are compelled to resort to non-traditional and unconventional weapons and strategy in order to obtain an advantage over a stronger opponent.

and time is on their side.

[ahsan28]

and time is on their side.

Of course, since permanent retention of captured countries in the post war scenerio becomes impossible with the passage of time. One can't afford SURGE POLICY everywhere for a longer duration.

[Gator]

Of course, since permanent retention of captured countries in the post war scenerio becomes impossible with the passage of time. One can't afford SURGE POLICY everywhere for a longer duration.

But that is not the case here as the insurgents don't have wide true support, they only have a few pockets of truly loyal population. As insurgent tactics a taken up, counter insurgency measures are taken. No military solution and as the Taliban is not a strategic threat to Afghanistan so its going to be a long slog.

[ahsan28]

But that is not the case here as the insurgents don't have wide true support, they only have a few pockets of truly loyal population.

Your line of reasoning is incorrect. Sun Tzu says that a fish can't survive w/o fresh waters, similarly insurgency can't survive w/o popular support. Had that not been the factual position on ground, Taliban's resistance movement would have died long ago.

The nature of counterinsurgency operations differs from the conventional conditions, soldiers are expected to face in combat. The commanders face an enemy whose objectives, tactics, and concepts are usually difficult to comprehend. The situation becomes worst, when you are conducting such operations in hostile environments on enemy territory, coupled with so many limitations like difficult terrain, extreme weather conditions, acute shortage of troops and resources available, vague and often inaccurate intelligence, which forces you to make jerky decisions and commit your resources in the wrong directions, which results in dissipation and you suddenly find yourself deprived of the flexibility on account of absence of reserves to deal with unforeseen and that is the ideal time, when freedom fighters will make you bleed. They will ensure that you are never able to achieve balance on ground. The same is happening with peace-keepers in Afghanistan :embarrass

Sun Tzu says:-

1. The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat, first fights and afterwards looks for victory :D

2. To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting :D

[Gator]

You misunderstand as you are taking Sun Tzu's abstractions to heart and going to extremes. You can't look at it as ALL the population supports the Taliban or NONE of the population supports the Taliban. Sure, there are those who support the Taliban in Afghanistan, but in my opinion, they are not a majority.The continued presence of the Taliban is more due to support in Pakistan than Afghanistan.

You have to be able to see the grey areas and things are not static. The challenges you deliniate are not insurmoutable and counter insurgency will get better with time, if given time.

The Afghan army will be better in five years. Intelligence services will be better. The taliban will continue to degrade their own local support.

The Taliban's activities in Pakistan show they are turning their focus more towards that region as Afghanistan gets tougher and tougher.

[ahsan28]

Sure, there are those who support the Taliban in Afghanistan, but in my opinion, they are not a majority.The continued presence of the Taliban is more due to support in Pakistan than Afghanistan.

The Taliban's activities in Pakistan show they are turning their focus more towards that region as Afghanistan gets tougher and tougher.

You forgot to mention the country, which attacked Afghanistan in 70s, in order to reach warm waters, but had to retreat due to US intervention through Pakistan. Don't you consider their indirect role, in order to take revenge :D

Again you didn't mention the country, which ranks at the top amongst axis of evil, as considered by the US and their prime interest is to see their enemy bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think they are sleeping :D

Pakistan internal crisis are linked more to another country, which is not ready to give Kashmiris, the right of self-determination and considers Pakistan, responsible for the insurgency in Indian occupied Kashmir. Don't you think, they have appropriate time to settle the scores :muddlehea

[Gator]

You forgot to mention the country, which attacked Afghanistan in 70s, in order to reach warm waters, but had to retreat due to US intervention through Pakistan. Don't you consider their indirect role, in order to take revenge :D

Again you didn't mention the country, which ranks at the top amongst axis of evil, as considered by the US and their prime interest is to see their enemy bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you think they are sleeping :D

Pakistan internal crisis are linked more to another country, which is not ready to give Kashmiris, the right of self-determination and considers Pakistan, responsible for the insurgency in Indian occupied Kashmir. Don't you think, they have appropriate time to settle the scores :muddlehea

Russia's happier with a non-radical Afghanistan.

Iran is a mix of things and is open to moderation and A is out due to his horrible economic policies.

Umm...Do you mean India is fomenting the Taliban & militant attacks in Pakistan?

You don't have to really answer that last one. Let's revisit this conversation in a year. It'll be interesting to see where we are.

Adios.

[sudais1]

and time is on their side.

exactly, they will put their whole family on the line - the generation after them- and after them. They really will fight for a hundred years because they have strong belief they will go to paradise fighting the enemy. So they don't care how long it takes because they believe their getting something better out of it

[ahsan28]

The British have made matters worse, says Afghan President

From The Times
January 25, 2008


Britain and Afghanistan fell out in spectacular fashion yesterday after President Karzai accused his British allies of bungling the military operation in Helmand and setting back prospects for the area by 18 months.

Mr Karzai, Britain’s key ally in Afghanistan, had little praise for the efforts of the 7,800 British troops deployed in his country. Most are in the restless southern Helmand province, where Britain has invested billions of pounds in trying to defeat the Taleban

Mr Karzai said that they had failed in the task :D

Asked if he was blaming British failure for the return of the Taleban, he added: “I just described the situation of mistakes we made :-[


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3248318.ece

[Cognescenti]

The British have made matters worse, says Afghan President

From The Times
January 25, 2008


Britain and Afghanistan fell out in spectacular fashion yesterday after President Karzai accused his British allies of bungling the military operation in Helmand and setting back prospects for the area by 18 months.

Mr Karzai, Britain’s key ally in Afghanistan, had little praise for the efforts of the 7,800 British troops deployed in his country. Most are in the restless southern Helmand province, where Britain has invested billions of pounds in trying to defeat the Taleban

Mr Karzai said that they had failed in the task :D

Asked if he was blaming British failure for the return of the Taleban, he added: “I just described the situation of mistakes we made :-[


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3248318.ece

Ashan;

This all seems like a sporting event to you. Do you realize pople are being killed on both sides (most of the "civies" by the Taliban)?

What is so funny about it?

[ahsan28]

Who attacked Afghanistan?

Strange, when the tables are being turned and when the cracks within coalition of the unwilling are visible, we are concerned about casualties on both sides?

[snakelegs]

we do not cause casualties.
we cause collateral damage. :D

[KAding]

Of course, much of the increased hostility has to do with NATO deployments in Southern Afghanistan.

Nevertheless, it is clear the Taliban are increasingly active.

[KAding]

and time is on their side.

Is it? A few years ago there hardly was an Afghan National Army for example. Only 3,000 in 2004 compared to nearly 60,000 now.

[ahsan28]

A few years ago there hardly was an Afghan National Army for example. Only 3,000 in 2004 compared to nearly 60,000 now.

So?

[Keltoi]

So?

So? That means if the Taliban had hopes of toppling the new government, they are running out of time. The stronger the Afghan national army gets, the more impossible that task is going to be.

[KAding]

So?

Well, that same Taliban didn't even manage to control Afghanistan before there was a functioning government and foreign powers training, arming and financing their opponents.

What makes people think they will manage now? I think in the end the Taliban will end up controlling parts of Southern Afghanistan, yes, but not much more. Their popularity among especially non-Pashtuns leaves much to be desired, opinion polls show that much.

[ahsan28]

So? That means if the Taliban had hopes of toppling the new government, they are running out of time. The stronger the Afghan national army gets, the more impossible that task is going to be.

Ohhhh, I never anticipated. My fault :embarrass

[Cognescenti]

Ashan;

If you are dreaming of a return of the glory days of the beard police and the music police and the video police and the blowing up of those pesky Budhists statues and the public sawing off of hands and the shooting of women in the back of the head with an assault rifle in the soccer stadium in Kabul.....if that kind of stuff arouses you...then you are going to be a disppointed guy.

[snakelegs]

Is it? A few years ago there hardly was an Afghan National Army for example. Only 3,000 in 2004 compared to nearly 60,000 now.

these people (talking here about the people, not the talibaan specifically) have seen and thrown out many invaders. they don't care how long it takes - even if it is not until a future generation. they will not give up.
they can inflict great damage with few men and cheap weapons. they are patient and completely convinced of their cause and used to hardship. also remember, it is their land and no one knows it like they do.

[MartyrX]

Doesn't anyone remember reading about The Vietnam War. We outgunned them, outnumbered them, and we still lost. Why, because of their shear will to their cause.

[Keltoi]

these people (talking here about the people, not the talibaan specifically) have seen and thrown out many invaders. they don't care how long it takes - even if it is not until a future generation. they will not give up.
they can inflict great damage with few men and cheap weapons. they are patient and completely convinced of their cause and used to hardship. also remember, it is their land and no one knows it like they do.

That might make sense snakelegs, if the Taliban were actually made up of native Afghans. I'm sure some of them are, but many are not.

[Keltoi]

Doesn't anyone remember reading about The Vietnam War. We outgunned them, outnumbered them, and we still lost. Why, because of their shear will to their cause.

...and a little thing called U.S. politics.

[MartyrX]

...and a little thing called U.S. politics.

They would have won even if the whole country was right behind the troops. It was doomed from the get-go.

[snakelegs]

That might make sense snakelegs, if the Taliban were actually made up of native Afghans. I'm sure some of them are, but many are not.

that is why i said the people - not the talibaan specifically. the people who will be there long after all the foreigners are gone.

[Keltoi]

They would have won even if the whole country was right behind the troops. It was doomed from the get-go.

Well, this is off topic anyway, we'll agree to disagree. In any event, the Vietcong were a different beast altogether.

[Keltoi]

that is why i said the people - not the talibaan specifically. the people who will be there long after all the foreigners are gone.

My point was that there isn't a widespread Afghan supported insurgency...the base of operations for the insurgency in Afghanistan is Pakistan.

[MartyrX]

Well, this is off topic anyway, we'll agree to disagree. In any event, the Vietcong were a different beast altogether.

Sounds good.

[snakelegs]

My point was that there isn't a widespread Afghan supported insurgency...the base of operations for the insurgency in Afghanistan is Pakistan.

the border between pakistan and afghanistan is porous and it is the same people on both sides and they don't recgonize the border. yes, the base is now in pakistan.

[Trumble]

Doesn't anyone remember reading about The Vietnam War. We outgunned them, outnumbered them, and we still lost. Why, because of their shear will to their cause.

Vietnam is not an analogous situation (although the Russian involvement in Afghanistan may be). Ultimately it was the Soviet backed North Vietnamese regulars that won the war, not the Vietcong irregulars who by the end of the Tet offensive were pretty much busted... the organisations remained but replacements were usually North Vietnamese. It was also the NVA who generally did the 'outnumbering', BTW.

[ahsan28]

Ashan;

If you are dreaming of a return of the glory days of the beard police and the music police and the video police and the blowing up of those pesky Budhists statues and the public sawing off of hands and the shooting of women in the back of the head with an assault rifle in the soccer stadium in Kabul.....if that kind of stuff arouses you...then you are going to be a disppointed guy.

Cognescenti, I never praised or supported anything based on extremism, may it be from Muslims or by non-Muslims. Our religion doesn't permit us. Wrong is wrong, but that doesn't provide enough justification to someone to attack a sovereign country and destabilise the whole region. I don't care whether Talibans come into power or their opponents. It all depends upon Afghans, as to whom they want. Only a free and fair election can help determine the future govt, which can represent Afghanistan in true perspective, not the existing puppet one, which is serving western interests.

With regard to your claims of Talibans not returning into power, I think you are a bit wishful, since you are not the actual spokesman on their behalf. The right to elect the govt rests only with Afghans. However I can claim safely that Americans and NATO will never win in Afghanistan. The reasons I explained in detail in one of my posts above. More than that, I shall have to use pure military terminologies, in order to give credibility to my reasoning, which I don't want, since it would be too hard for you to comprehend :D

[ahsan28]

Canada threatens to pull soldiers from Afghanistan


Jan 28, 2008


OTTAWA(Reuters) - Canada will pull its 2,500 troops out of Afghanistan early next year unless NATO sends in significant reinforcements, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday, signaling Ottawa has lost patience with what it sees as foot-dragging by allies.

Harper, who is exasperated at the refusal of many other NATO nations to commit more troops to Afghanistan, said the Alliance's failure to provide enough forces meant the whole future of the organization was under serious threat.

"NATO's reputation is on the line here ... all the increasing evidence suggests that NATO's efforts in Afghanistan as a whole are not adequate.


http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=22966



U.S. to press NATO for more troops for Afghanistan


Tue Jan 29


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Tuesday it will press NATO's European members to send more troops to Afghanistan's violent south in response to a call from Canada for reinforcements, but Washington will not boost its force there.

U.S. defense officials too have regularly complained about the unwillingness of European allies to dedicate more combat troops and equipment to Afghanistan, where Taliban violence has steadily climbed for more than two years.

The United States has 29,000 troops in Afghanistan and earlier this month said it would add 3,200 Marines to that war zone. Morrell said 2,200 of those would be sent to Afghanistan's violent south, which includes Kandahar.

"That's as much and as deep as we're going at this point," Morrell said.

Asked if the Pentagon was considering an additional deployment following Canada's call, Morrell said, "No."

"We've done, as I made clear, what we can do," he said.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080129/...sa_canada_dc_1


:embarrass

[ahsan28]

Half-trained troops to fight the Taleban

From The Times
January 31, 2008

Nearly 1,000 new army recruits face having their combat training cut by half so that they can be rushed to the battlefields of Afghanistan.

The Army has been facing serious manning shortfalls for some time.

Although recruitment has been improving in recent months, there has been a steady rise in the number of officers and other ranks leaving the Service early. This was highlighted this week by the Commons Defence Committee.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3279578.ece



Afghan war may not be forgotten so easily

From The Times
January 31, 2008


Afghanistan risks becoming “the forgotten war” and a failed state beyond retrieval because of deteriorating international support and a growing violent insurgency, according to a distinguished independent panel in the US.

Support for the conflict in coalition countries is wavering. A recent report to the Canadian Parliament was striking for its resentment that the US had not always appreciated the role of its forces, which were involved in some of the fiercest fighting.

Tension is unsurprising because the US feels that the allies could do more. Gates said yesterday that he agreed with the argument that more troops were needed, “but certainly not ours”.

The picture that emerges from Kabul is that Karzai is terrifyingly vulnerable: barricaded into the palace, reminiscing about his stay with the Prince of Wales that gave him the freedom to walk a mile.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle3279658.ece


:embarrass

[Idris]

If you are dreaming of a return of the glory days of the beard police and the music police and the video police and the blowing up of those pesky Budhists statues and the public sawing off of hands and the shooting of women in the back of the head with an assault rifle in the soccer stadium in Kabul.....if that kind of stuff arouses you...then you are going to be a disppointed guy.

And their’s is me thinking the US invade Afghanistan because of one man.

[Keltoi]

More like a terrorist organization protected by a government who by virtue of that protection became an enemy, i.e. the Taliban.

[Gator]

Since we're keeping up with Afghan War news here....

Al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan killed
By PAUL SCHEMM, Associated Press Writer
AP

Abu Laith al-Libi, a top al-Qaida commander in Afghanistan who was blamed for bombing a base while Vice President Cheney was visiting last year, has been killed in Pakistan, according to a militant Web site.

Al-Libi was a key link between the Taliban and al-Qaida and was one of the Americans' 12 most-wanted men with a bounty of $200,000 on his head.

...

A knowledgeable Western official said that "it appears at this point that al-Libi has met his demise," but declined to talk about the circumstances. "It was a major success in taking one of the top terrorists in the world off the street," the official said. He added that the death occurred "within the last few days."

...

Al-Libi also led an al-Qaida training camp and appeared in a number of al-Qaida Internet videos.

Maj. Chris Belcher, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan, said last year that al-Libi was a guerrilla fighter "knowledgeable about how to conduct suicide bombing missions and how to inflict the most civilian casualties." He had probably directed "one or more terror training camps," Belcher said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/...ZPHw.NOhcUewgF

[allah-akbar]

The Afghan Governement has FAILED, Failing and will continue to FAIL. How do i know this? I am an AFGHAN myself, and in the past month or so, 200 people was dead. It wasn't war that caused it. It was Cold! People froze to death. WHAT DID THEY GOV'T DO? NOTHING!

i see, two things will happen:

1. We (afghans) will realize that there is nothing for us in this lousy gov't. and go against them, which would be really dirty, possible a civial war or the gov't will get nutralized and the forign troop pull out.

2. People will start supporting Taliban again, or A new group will form similar to the Tablian movement, and call themselves as oppositions who are against NATO and gain the people's choice.


Allah knows best!

[Gator]

The Afghan Governement has FAILED, Failing and will continue to FAIL. How do i know this? I am an AFGHAN myself, and in the past month or so, 200 people was dead. It wasn't war that caused it. It was Cold! People froze to death. WHAT DID THEY GOV'T DO? NOTHING!

OK, so let's say either one happens and a new government is in power. When the next winter roles around and you see 200 more people die and the government does nothing. What are you going to do then?

Another revolution, in a never ending series?

Or let's say you are in power and an insurgent war is limiting your capability to help these people. Would you blame the new people who rise up and kill you?

Just a few thoughts.

[Cognescenti]

The Afghan Governement has FAILED, Failing and will continue to FAIL. How do i know this? I am an AFGHAN myself, and in the past month or so, 200 people was dead. It wasn't war that caused it. It was Cold! People froze to death. WHAT DID THEY GOV'T DO? NOTHING!
!

Is this a new phenomenon...that it gets cold in the Winter in Afghansitan?

[snakelegs]

US concerned international community may abandon Afghanistan
14 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States expressed concern Thursday that the international community could abandon Afghanistan, cautioning that success in the insurgency-wracked nation was "not assured."

"The greatest threat to Afghanistan's future is abandonment by the international community," Richard Boucher, the State Department's pointman for Afghanistan, told a Senate hearing on the turmoil in Afghanistan.

He said the mission in Afghanistan needed more troops and equipment, such as helicopters, and pointed out that "too few of our allies have combat troops fighting the insurgents especially in the south."

Southern Afghanistan has seen the worst violence since the Taliban were ousted in the US-led invasion in 2001, after the September 11 terror attacks masterminded by Al-Qaeda.

for the rest:
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...eJqQr8omx-J69A

[Intisar]

For any new information on what's going on in Afghanistan, create a new thread please. :)

:threadclo