Lets just say for arguments sake that we have killed/captured OBL and that enough of the Taliban has been killed that we don't need to keep a large, standing, multinational army there.

The Afghanis have no industry to speak of and not much in the way of natural resources.  That's why they grow opium poppies. 

So, how do you think that we (the west) is going to win the peace in Afghanistan?

Bear,

Karzai and the UN are both calling for more troops on the ground there. The general feeling is that the EU isn't pulling its weight, nor is there enough reconstruction and infrastructure building (hearts and minds). Mostly the Afghan people are happy to have outside help as they are very tired of being abused by Al Qaeda, the Taliban and thugs.


Regards
Terry

Bear,

Right now and as it stands, the Karzai government will fall without the requested help from 'outside' because the terrorists intend to take the government. Perhaps as a new place to hide, train and supply insurgents in a safe (for them) area.


-Terry

Hey where is the dotted line. I want to put my signature on it.

We are building schools, a lot of them. Without the security the schools get burned down.




Ahk

While I expect I will draw the ire of all, those purple fingers meant nothing. Karsai is little more than a puppet which is why he is often referred to as the "Mayor of Kabul."  His life is in the hands daily of U.S. security contractors and the nation as a whole is in the control of the warlords as it was previously and now remains. 

Has NATO who essentially got the job of securing Afghanistan dumped on them as Bush pulled back to attack Iraq,  doing enough to secure the the country?  I haven't a clue, but the resurgent Taliban, once claimed destroyed and "on the run" always appear to have refuge in the mountain areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan where many of those along the border shelter and support them.

Without sounding isolationist, maybe the time has come to get the hell out and
leave Afghanistan to the Afghanistanis?  Historically, that appears to be the
case, but at this point the primary strategic interest  IMHO has little to do with
Afghanistan, but instead Iran on the border.  Just my opinion. LOL, feel free to have at it.

Terry a quarrel appears to be erupting related to the NATO occupation of Afghanistan.  I have Canadian friends who fall on both sides of the issue. While one want their troops out of Afghanistan, the other believes there is the necessity of complying with NATO obligations.  Neither are Harper supporters.  I wonder what the general attitude in OZ might be about Australian troops since Rudd's election. I suspect you would be in disagreement with another Aussie friend who campaigned for Rudd, but I'm curious.

Canadian pullout from Afghanistan won’t harm NATO: official

Peter O’Neil, Europe Correspondent,  Canwest News Service  Published: Tuesday, January 29, 2008

BRUSSELS -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper is engaging in unnecessary, irrelevant and "overheated" speculation when he suggests a Canadian troop pullout from Afghanistan could jeopardize the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a NATO official said here Tuesday.

Canadians have every right to debate the future of Canada's "key" military role in Afghanistan that has led to a disproportionately high number of Canadian casualties, NATO spokesman James Appathurai told reporters.

But he challenged Harper's grim speculation about the future of NATO, an alliance founded by the U.S., western Europe and Canada in 1949 as a bulwark against the possible military threat from the old Soviet Union.

"I think that making links between this [Canada's possible withdrawal] and NATO's credibility are frankly ... unnecessary," he said.

"We understand the Canadian position that a thousand more troops are needed in Kandahar. But let's not link what is a successful mission with 37 countries [or] NATO's 60-year credibility to this. That simply is not really relevant."

Harper said Monday that his government would only support an extension of the Canadian mission beyond February 2009 if allies provide more equipment and 1,000 troops to help Canada in Kandahar.

"I think if NATO can't come through with that help, then I think, frankly, NATO's own reputation and future will be in jeopardy," Harper told reporters after endorsing that recommendation from a panel headed by former Liberal cabinet minister John Manley.

Canada, with roughly 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, has lost 78 soldiers and one diplomat. All three opposition parties are pressuring Harper's Conservatives to end Canada's combat mission by no later than February, 2009, with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois demanding an immediate withdrawal.

Appathurai showered praise on Canada's crucial role in Afghanistan and acknowledged the government's political challenge defending the mission in in the dangerous Kandahar region, the spiritual heart of the Taliban resistance.

"I think we all understand the situation, the political constellation in Canada."

He said NATO will survive and continue its United Nations-mandated mission even if Canadian troops depart.

He noted that NATO has increased its troop count to more than 40,000 from 6,000 over two years and that 10 countries have recently increased their contributions. No country has withdrawn all its troops, he said.

"This kind of overheated speculation [about NATO being in jeopardy] really needs to be cooled a little bit."

He stressed that Canada has an important role to play as part of the allies' efforts to defend human rights, develop a battered country, fight international terrorism, and support the United Nations.

"Let there be no ambiguity. Canada is playing a key role in this mission. We would like to see that role continue. We think Canada has accomplished a lot in Kandahar."

He said NATO expects a Canadian decision around the time of the alliance's crucial summit in Bucharest in early April.

Appathurai also had blunt words about President Hamid Karzai's decision to veto the nomination of Lord Paddy Ashdown, the former international representative during the Bosnian conflict, to become the United Nations' top representative in Afghanistan.

"I can tell you that we are disappointed" that Ashdown wasn't given the chance to unite the often conflicting international efforts to rebuild the country, he said.

Appathurai's unusually critical comments of the Harper government echo unease simmering in Europe about Canada's pullout threat. Eyebrows are being raised over ongoing finger-pointing by Canadians alleging that countries like France and Germany, with troops mostly in relatively safe regions of Afghanistan, aren't doing enough so-called heavy lifting.

Canada's critics note that Germany, despite its widespread public angst over military engagements, has more troops than Canada in Afghanistan. France, they point out, also has key military responsibilities elsewhere in the world, such as in conflict-plagued Africa countries like Chad.

Canada's hardball position will increase trans-Atlantic acrimony over a NATO mission that is unpopular and often misunderstood in Europe, said former Europe-based American diplomat Dan Hamilton.

"Government declarations are only likely to stiffen opposition and divert the alliance from its main mission in Afghanistan," said Hamilton, director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Alvaro de Vasconcelos, the Paris-based director of the European Union Institute for Security Studies, said there's growing concern in European circles about possible allied defeat in Afghanistan.

But he said European countries already face both skeptical voters and overextended military commitments in Afghanistan and other international hot-spots.

"It's not impossible but it will be quite difficult" for Canada to get its requested support, de Vasconcelos told Canwest.

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, but Washington will not boost its force there.

U.S. defence officials too have regularly complained about the unwillingness of European allies to dedicate more combat troops and equipment to Afghanistan, where the U.S. has 29,000 troops and plans to add another 3,200 marines -- of which 2,200 would be sent to the south.

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

With file from Reuters

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=272329
 

Wow, lots of good answers.  I appreciate 'em.

I personally think that NATO is gonna be there for awhile.  My grandson may be asked to serve there in 20 years or so.  (Now, there's a thought that sucks!)  We just might be able to defeat ignorance and want in A-stan if we provide security long enough for the schools and new infrastructure to actually work.  Maybe they can actually come up with an industry, besides growing dope, that will actually work. 

I know that everyone who has gotten drawn into conflict there, the Mongols, the British and Imperial Russians and, later, the Soviets all got their noses tweaked and A-stan remained pretty much the way it was before the outsiders got there.  It will be  good day when they can stand up for themselves. 

I do see a difference between whats happening this time and the historical interventions:  Its not a British problem or a Russian problem or an Iranian problem, its a world problem.  I think that NATO is probably the organization that is best equipped to fight this fight.  So many countries working together to actively stop terrorism is a good thing!

Countries will change their deployments; some troop strengths will shift up while others will shift down.  I do think a large international contingent will be there for a long time to come.

One thing that I saw as very interesting was that Jordan appears to be the only Arab country participating; also, Jordan and Turkey are the only Middle Eastern (and predominantly Muslim) countries with troops there.  One would think that other ME countries would be much more interested in stopping terrorism in A-stan since it so much closer to their territory than it is to Europe and North America.

Thanks again for your insight!