Our expectations are radically different then the Soviets who wanted to install a Communist puppet state there and who were willing to employ any method to impose it.  The United States has no desire to interfere with the people's religion, will accept any indigenous local who has support of a good number of Afghanistan's people provided he is not calling for our death.

What evidence is there that a majority or even substantial minority wishes for a return to the days of Taliban rule? The Taliban's only hope is to create such an atmosphere of lawlessness and carnage that people will long for the security they could provide, but a substantially larger US presence there will make that far more difficult. If we can show the Afghan people that they can be modern, Muslim, and peaceful then it will be the Taliban whose days are numbered.

THe jihadis aren't going to go to Afghanistan, Michael.  Maybe in small numbers, but nothing that could dramatically change the ground situation.  Where they are going to go, and have already started going, is home- to fight the governments there.  You see this dramatically in Yemen and Algeria, as well as Lebanon and to a lesser extent Jordan.   Those who choose to stay with the main franchise might well help out Osama and the one-eyed Mullah, but the real jihadi legacy of Iraq will be a bunch of well-trained, battle-hardened soldiers working to create failed states all around the Middle East.

Exactly, blackton. Our adventure in Iraq was complicated from the start by our need to occupy the country in order to achieve our objectives there. In Afghanistan, we've never been in the business of territorial occupation. There's a bit of a manhunt to do, and a bit of counterinsurgency, and a bit of reconstruction and redevelopment, and a bit of indigenous institution-building. But there's little to no acting in place of the local government. There's a big difference between people who are willing to kill themselves to defeat a foreign occupier, and people who are willing to kill themselves to kill the agents of a distant country who happen to be working nearby.

Anyway, the current escalation of Taliban activity in Afghanistan should make it manifestly clear that we are not successfully pinning the jihadist enemy down in Iraq so that he can't operate elsewhere.

If, as Joe Lieberman and his fearmongering friends on the right warn us, al-Qaeda is likely to attack us again in spectacular fashion in 2009, then that would renew the already strong public support for "finishing the job" in Afghanistan (and Pakistan). So public will is not and will not be a problem for an increased commitment to the Afghan front. Material and logistical barriers will be. But if we haven't the men or the money to succeed in Afghanistan even with a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, then neither do we have the men or money to succeed in Afghanistan absent an Iraq withdrawal, nor to succeed in Iraq under any circumstances. If we really can't "win" in Afghanistan, then we can't win anywhere. So the "Afghanistan is too hard" argument is actually an argument in favor of rapid, total withdrawal from the entire Middle East.

I expect the jihadis to stay in Iraq to fight against the Iranian puppet government, or to Saudi Arabia.

Jihadis *aren't* a substantial part of our problem in Iraq, and they never have been.

This is the first realistic post I've seen on Afghanistan in some time. It is absurd to think that simply sending more American troops there is going to have any long term effect, except to get lots more Americans killed. It doesn't matter much where "the jihadis" go--as FWright correctly notes, they're not the main problem in Iraq, or for that matter in Afghanistan or much of anywhere else. This is where the police work solution comes in.

The fact that a small group got lucky on 9/11 and took advantage of our vulnerabilities doesn't mean AQ is anything like a really serious national security problem. Since the Taliban are essentially "the Pashtuns", there isn't going to be any "final victory" in Afghanistan. About the best we can hope for is to keep them marginalized while providing support for the gradual development of a stronger Kabul government. This is a long-term, low-priority project because, unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is entirely peripheral to our national interests. Our forces should be where our vital interests are being contested, and for the foreseeable future, that's Iraq.

Wow, talk about a pre-911 mentality.  The Afghans are a central part of our national interest along with Iraq.  We're fighting the same enemy.  The last thing we need is to allow the taliban to step in again and take over Afghanistan.  Then we'd be back to square 1.  Now that Afghanistan has become a bigger problem than Iraq, no doubt the liberal media will start claiming anew that Iraq has taken our sights off Afghanistan.  While that may be somewhat true, the miracle and blessing is that Iraq appears to be largely pacified thanks to our noble troops.

With all due respect, jwl, it's not the same enemy, and it's certainly not the same stakes.

In Iraq, we are supporting the legitimate government against various Iraqi factions that would like to take control of all or part of the country. This process has been complicated by clever AQ anarchist tactics in the past, but that problem has been largely solved in no small measure by the Iraqis themselves. The issues on the table in Iraq bear strongly on the future of the world economy, the possible fate of major US allies including but not limited to Israel, and the nature of our future relationship with Iran, to name only a few.

In Afghanistan, "the Taliban" are essentially the traditional Pashtun fighters who always fight foreigners. They have virtually no chance of taking power in any remotely likely scenario, and if we really want to put them out of business, we should just buy up the opium crop and either give it to the World Health Organization or burn it. The issues on the table since 2002, when it became clear that the nation-state platform had been taken away from AQ, are damned few, and mostly have to do with our image. To the extent that an actual terrorist threat to the US exists, which is a lot less than many seem to think, it comes from places like London, Rotterdam, the Paris suburbs, and Hamburg.

Robert, I agree with most of what you're saying.  However, the Taliban prior to their ouster walked right in and took the reigns of Afghanistan without even much fighting.  If the Afghan gov't is not supported by Western military power, they could easily crumble in a second coming of the taliban.  I think it's a huge strategic win for the US that we have an ally in Afghanistan.  Perhaps it is secondary to Iraq, but only because of the size of the stakes in Iraq.

What's more, Afghanistan gives us a staging base should we need to tame the outer regions of Pakistan.  The recent articles I've been reading about the islamists in that hellhole are not encouraging at all.  The loss of our ally Musharaff and the coming of Bhutto's corrupt husband are not helping matters.  Note that Pakistan is the one with giant nuclear missiles spread all over the country.  Any islamist that takes control of a region is a dangerous foe indeed.

Bob, I disagree, we could certainly use more troops in Afghanistan, and more development too. The Taliban might be Pashtun, but that doesn't mean Pashtun are Taliban. And the Pashtun have not always fought against foreigners. Don't forget the silk road went right through there, that wouldn't have existed if every caravan was destroyed or attacked. Things change.

Look, fellas, I'm in favor of supporting Afghanistan, especially in terms of development. And we should definitely stop doing things that make matters worse, like poppy eradication. I just think it's a big over-reaction, and one that flies in the face of the facts, to assert that a) we are facing some kind of imminent threat of the Taliban taking over; or b) that we need to (or should)  send a lot of heavy infantry from Iraq to Afghanistan.

For one thing, every "ally" we have, NATO, the UN--everybody-- agreed that we all have a stake in supporting Afghanistan. This is a test case for a less uni-polar world security architecture, and I think we also have a big stake in insisting that others put their troops where their mouths were.

Bob, I'm all for "insisting that others put their troops where their mouths were," but as you very well know, even were they to do so, it would have very little effect on the ground.  Our EU allies have next to no military capabilities to rely on.  And some, like Germany, won't fight.

I'm not against multi-polarity, but that is an unrealisitic goal, given the lack of muscle that our allies have freely chosen.

jwl, I agree that it is a huge strategic win to have an ally in Afghanistan. The reason Afghanistan is important, though, has changed. It was important to take out the Taliban because they provided a training ground for Al Queda. Now that Al Queda has (apparently) moved into Pakistan, it is important that we stay in Afghanistan to make sure they don't destabilize Pakistan (any more than they're trying to already).  If we leave Afghanistan, Al Queda will certainly regroup there and, while unlikely to take over the government of Afghanistan, they will have more freedom to plan and destabilize Pakistan.  I'd rather have Al Queda and the Taliban pissing across the border into Afghanistan, which is of little inherent strategic value to the US, than pissing across the border the other way into Pakistan, which has much, much more strategic value.

And butchie and Bob, I wish that our allies would put some boots on the ground in Afghanistan.  It seems that some of our NATO friends like multi-polarity only with their mouthes, not with their fists.

Afghanistan is the best test case we've got for a workable multinational security operation. All the groundwork has been laid in terms of authorizations, NATO declarations, parliamentary debates in the various countries, logistical links established, the beginning of training infrastructure staffed by vets with real experience in country--if it can't work in Afghanistan, it can't work.

Believe me, Butch, I'm aware of the limitations. But if this situation is ever going to change, this is the place to press for it, and now is the time to do it.  We really need to insist, and attach some consequences to failure to deliver on commitments. It will be a huge mistake if Obama re-deploys a bunch of people from Iraq, one because it will let the allies off the hook; and two because more grunts is not really what's called for in Afghanistan. This thing needs to be approached with some patience, but relentless insistence on burden sharing.