Umm... sorry, but the two most powerful militaries in the world (US and Russa) could not defeat them. I think they can take care of themselves.

It's fallacious to look at Afghanistan with this "graveyard of Empires" mindset. The Soviet Union tackled them when their country was rotting from the inside. We were doing a pretty good job until we decided to sidetrack our attention a few thousand miles away. If Afghanistan had been the priority from the beginning, the picture would be much more pleasant.

And we can do something the Soviets (and British, back in the day) wouldn't have been willing to do: focus on infrastructure development. The Afghan people have to be aware that if the Taliban come back, that $1 trillion of rare earth metals is going to sit there forever. If the current Afghan regime focuses on human development, they can buy off the anger against them, and marginalize the extremists.

The Soviet Union was never built to fight a smart war (they never really got to fight the conventional war, or even the nuclear war, that they were ready for), and we simply haven't been focusing like we should have. The British were good at counterinsurgency in their time, but they left the Afghan mission to incompetents, and like us now, didn't focus.

They don't want infrastructure development. We build roads, and they destroy them. Afganistan is not a country in the traditional sense. It's a collection of independent tribes run by individual warlords. These tribal leaders know that infrastructure means  centralized control, and they want nothing of it.

To win a war in Afganistan, is to fight 100 independent wars. It's not worth it. It's time to just come home.

I agree on Afghanistan's makeup, but i'm saying that these warlords are not necessarily intractible, committed foes. Generally they're looking out for number one, and the Taliban isn't necessarily going to provide that.

i can't believe how much stupid posts i saw in this thread!!!

how many of you guy were already overthere? to those where wasn't: "Rhamouch" or "Tchoup Cha"!
i don't want to insult you but you know shit about how the talibans are organised. a lot of the 'civilians' (womens & childrens) where are killed in such operations are wifes & kids of those taliban fighters where are the original targets. they exactlly know how emotional we western people react if we see dead corps of 'innocent civilians' in the medias, therefor the talibans use theyr own family as human shield!!!

Though neither will a government run by someone who is a relative to a few of the Warlords.  With the Taliban... there is always a chance to get back in favor... but with Karzi who's always going to be in the same warlord's back pockets....

To win over more warlords, we'd need to rebuild the government from the bottom up... and even then I'm not sure it'll work because unlike Iraq it doesn't seem like we have any real credible people to put up top while it sorts out.

LoL at the USA haters in the thread.  Oh well, it is the fashionable thing to do after all.

On the other hand, the USA as well as any country has certainly done plenty wrong to the rest of the world.  Only, it isn't as politically correct to snipe at any country besides that which is PERCEIVED as being a "superpower."

Anyway, here is the issue about war, it sucks.  People (most of them innocent) die.  That is the very nature of war.  The purpose of armed forces is to achieve peace through victory - before your enemies acheive their peace with you. 

Now, before you go lableing me a "war monger", consider this...

Were it up to me, the USA would not involve itself in any conflicts.  We would be friendly to all nations desiring a cordial relationship, and work for the prosperity of all.  Trade would be open and respect would be a "two way street."

On the other hand, we would have a strong national defense, and any nation would know that, to attack us, is to invite retaliation with full conventional force (irrespective of collateral damage), and harboring those who attack is tantamount to a direct attack.  Furthermore, any attack with non-conventional weapons will be met in kind.

As for "humanitarian missions", decisions about such things should be left to the UN, but also equally supported by all nations desiring an "intervention".  The USA would not be the "police of the world".  In fact, I imagine that the rest of the world would appreciate a less invasive stance.

some people here clearly have their own agenda which is to make the US look bad for daring to invade a middle eastern country.

The government just keeps on making it tougher and tougher for me to be a proud American.

Yeah op...I pray I'll never meet you in RL. Your very quick to jump on the hate train...but do you ever look at the other side? Fuck no!*ban me w/e it's worth it this time*

I'm going to start posting links to counter your ''USA kills thousands" card.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100728/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_bus

Infact I hope others do the same.

Tali kills more of their own than the USA could in 50 years.

Hate in this world is getting sooo out of hand I'm losing hope. How can one justify how another should be when that same person does what they feel is right?