“My (admittedly, outsider’s) guess is that mountain combat in winter time will turn this war into a soldier against soldier conflict. When helicopters can’t fly through blizzards, and Humvees get stuck in 15ft snowdrifts, there will be an equaliser effect. Our own American, British and other allied troops know that all too well. It is not a question of troop morale, it is a question of practicality, of fighting a slippery foe who chooses when to stand and fight, and when to slip away. A US Marine Corps junior officer told me recently of the latest mordant joke in Afghanistan: “The Americans have the watches, but we have the time.” That’s a creepy thought.”

Another article from Yale Professer Paul Kennedy urging Obama to pull out of Afghanistan. Why? Rome offers Obama lessons on limits. History offers some good insights.

“The question is this: are there military operations that Great Powers, even the greatest of the Great Powers at any given time, should not undertake? Are there campaigns that are just not worth fighting, because the terrain makes conquest impossible – or commitment of so many troops to handle such a treacherous operation would weaken obligations elsewhere? Does the number one power have to man every boundary, to be strong everywhere? Are there no limits?”

Unfortunately, to continue doing so we need to be there with force as Taliban is hell bent on wrecking all of it once again.

With reagrd to your point about
I sometimes wonder if right now less military action would have a greater benift …. no matter what lives will be lost, but if more of a fight to build an afganistan was the major agenda and the taliban were kind of left to their own stupidity as destroyers of it ….. which side would get more support in the long run?

First I do not agree the international community should just stand by and let the Taliban take over again along with its imposition of how one should live and literally take Afghan society to the dark ages. And, for the international community to do anything positive we need the force of weapons – without that everyone would be at the mercy of the Taliban which is not and should not be welcome in anyway.

Second, there is a bigger picture – today Pakistan is fighting for its survival and school children are afraid to go to school thinking that might be the last time they see their parents, loved ones. And Pakistan needs our support. Some like Imran Khan believe that if the coalition forces leave Afghanistan then all would be good in Pakistan.

I do not share that line of thought especially since the terrorists are now coming and killing in Rawalpindi including the Army bases and an Army Masjid. That was unthinkable even a couple of years ago.

Let us not forget they took over places as close as 100km from Islamabad. Now this is a nuclear weapon state — and there are parts of the Armed forces which clearly buy the extremist ideology. Imagine what would happen if nuclear weapons fall in the hands of the Pak Taliban and or its sympathisers in the armed forces.

India and china both have nuclear weapons and sadly the truth is if it becomes clear that the weaponry might fall in the hands of the terrorists – either or both states might go for a preemptive strike or the US would have to. I am sure President Obama would not want to be the second leader in the world who has to order nuclear strikes.

Whichever way you look at it, that would mean millions losing their lives – and significant impact on India and China. And all the challenges that come with it. Billions of people would be affected including agriculture and the recent recession would look like party days compared to what would happen to the world economy then.

No one wants the situation to evolve to that stage and our presence in Afghanistan does reduce the chances of that significantly. Hence leaving now would be wrong both moral and for strategic reasons.

Have a read:

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/31925

I know you mentioned cost in the criticisms … but seriously, what are we gonna do?
There was talk of a “war tax” …. Has our economy fully recovered?
How will this effect us at home? Way TOOOO much to think about

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…

I read alot today ….2004 army link
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4489450/

60% of our military is overseas already in 2004 … where are they getting more troops? There will be backlash in other countries as long as this is seen as an “American” or “western” fight etc
somolia
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125983594130174…
Iran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=112754&sec…
jordan
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/297745,…

and what of the troops that have been fighting for how many years ..
suicide
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/11/us_mil…
and are you aware of the stop loss process….
I did support this war in the begining … BUT how do you change something that may not want to change …
culture
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=…

a movement like in Libera maybe – http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/video/women-w…

political history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghani… for reference – Afganistan was building a democracy and the people over threw it after a year? Do they want to be “moderized”? What are the ground views on their economy? I know the poppy industry has been brought up .. but what of things like chinas bid for the copper mines and other outside indusrty? I fear all this will just keep getting attacked as part of some “american capitalist empire” … …

Road Warrior Ainsworth ain't so sure about Grinning Tony no more …

http://bnp.org.uk/2009/12/tony-blair-lied-over-…

Two problems solved at once, right?

By the way, some Black Leadewrs in the USA seem upset with the political setup in Cuba, a mere 50 years after Castr's gang came to power:

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2009/12/af…

Interesting, O Sunny?

For that matter, was it the white man that killed so many Sikhs in Delhi after Indira Gandhi's death?

I squarely believe that British meddling with the Khalsa to subvert them solely for colonial interests, i.e. disarming and disenpowering the independent Sikh army laid the foundation for all of the subsequent attacks experienced by Sikhs, be this at partition or what you mentioned. They are to blame for introducing the notions that caused Pakistan at the expense of so many. They can try and lie and make excuses, but that doesn't change the truth.

Your whole argument argument that because nonwhites kill each other, white people are okay to stick their nose around the globe doesn't have any logic for me. Whatever problems are experienced around the globe aren't help by poorly conceived interference, usually with a hidden selfish motive that leaves people in turmoil for decades/centuries in those regions long after the interferers are gone. Highlighting a few 'success' stories isn't going to detract from this truth.

And yes, of late, this mainly seems to come from a quarter that just can't seem to stop it (western Europeans). These people sent boys half way across the world to fight in wars when they should be focusing on what is going on in their own backyard.

I'm not going to blame Obama for anything yet by the way. He is just dealing with a situation that any would challenge any world leader.

Don't even try and deny that the antecedents of this whole scenario doesn't smack of old fashioned white imperialism. Whoever has ended up at the helm to today.

I am no empire builder and I am not naive to say that there have been fuck ups. While I may agree Bush/Chenney were not going to Iraq for altruistic reasons, I don't think tony blair was. We would disagree on that and there's no point arguing about that.

“This is no different to what has happened before when certain white people got excited and started to try and carve up the world in their preferred shape. They should stay at home more. It's better for the world as a whole. Any chance whitey may actually rehabilitate himself after this experience? Has he been traumatised enough yet or do more people have to get sent back here for that to happen?”

And I detest that statement. For that matter, was it the white man that killed so many Sikhs in Delhi after Indira Gandhi's death? Or was it the white man who decided to rape and murder Bangladeshi's because they had the audacity to win an election

Or was it the white man who killed so many in recent years in Rwanda or Congo?

Wasn't Abraham Lincoln a white man?

That comment is purely racist and in today's world has no basis at all. Do you think the President of the US took the decision based on the colour of his skin – or his half white part told him to put troops on the ground.

I'm not sure I agree with what you have to say here. There are argueably open-ended conflicts are there not? WW2 comes to mind……

I don't know why you brought this up. That was not my point and I support President Obama's plan and my long comment about what the international coalition would do speaks for itself.

However, on the war on terror, I do not subscribe to Faux News view of the War on Terror and I do not subscribe to overly simplistic argument made by our insensitive Foreign Secretary in Mumbai that there is no war on terror.

Have you seen the news today.

Today, in Rawalpindi a General of the Pakistani Army along with 36 others were killed by terrorists – it happened in a Pakistani Army Mosque

In Kashmir, a senior leader of the Hurriyat was attacked by militants – and he is in critical condition. His fault he favours Kashmiri independence but calls for peace.

The FBI released documents today which claim that Al-qaeda is funding LeT to provoke conflicts between India and Pakistan. And over the past weeks, if anyone watches news or reads would have read about the James Headley case.

The money trail shows there is a terror network that is committed to doing everything in its power globally to kill people indiscriminately. And they are against people expressing their will and it is our responsibility to fight in every possible way we can.

War on Terror is not against a religion – it is not against followers of a particular religion but against those who indiscriminately terrorise people to achieve their gains. Its a war that is being waged by legitimate governments against groups that ar

Whether its Ulfa (whioch is primarily a Hindu outfit), or the Real IRA (mostly Catholics) are all fucking terrorists and most terrorist groups have gotten funding based on the concept of ” my enemy's enemy is my friend” –

And in my book Taliban are terrorists – anyone who goes after burning schools. And there is a war on terror irrespective of what Miliband says.

I know we all like to hate Blair for his liberal intervention concept but it was very recently backed up by Ban Ki Moon calling it the right to protect. And that is exactly what the international community is doing.

I think that's a slippery road myself. Like powerful nations (or more accurately a small group within these) usually intervene for purely altruistic reasons in the first place. Although some instances may have occured, I'm sure the vast majority of such interventions had their own motives/agenda which were widely divergent of the official 'explanation'. Let's not be naive.

I can't see 'the right to protect' being exercised in any fair/consistent manner. So give it up, or else all you wiil end up doing is creating a platform for the next Chacha Bush. Let's face it, we are all praying his cock up doesn't turn into a massive nightmare for all of us now. The big question we have to ask is what type of moron (and their must be a fair few of them) actually think its a good idea to put such a jackass on the throne? I remember when all this was beginning and how many cocky strutting twats I would see around London. You could tell they thought that the empire was about to be resurrected……glory days were about to come.

In the end white man stirred a nasty hornet's nest which was inherited by a black man. The situation is so f**ked, that surely no one can expect Obama to rustle up some magic 'superplan' to fix everything?

This is one of those situations when you just know the reprecussions are going to be around for a long, long time in the region (and beyond), no matter what happens.

This is no different to what has happened before when certain white people got excited and started to try and carve up the world in their preferred shape. They should stay at home more. It's better for the world as a whole. Any chance whitey may actually rehabilitate himself after this experience? Has he been traumatised enough yet or do more people have to get sent back here for that to happen?

Milestones are good – but milestones should be set based on objectives and not because Democratic House Members are worried about their seats in 2011.

Shamit, in any serious project there are always deadlines/milestones and objectives, because otherwise how would you allocate resources (30 thousand+ troops)? And in this case, I would assume that Obama has set the objectives in accordance to the timeline. Yes, the timeline is obviously a political play for Obama who is up for election in 2012, but quite frankly, the whole point of going to Afghanistan was to get rid of Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden (which I supported), and not the War on Terror ™.