It's not the job of the American government to worry about what's happening in Afghanistan. You invaded, you got rid of the Taliban, thereby doing the Afghan people a world of good; for ten years you (and all of NATO) have tried to destroy them, and it just isn't working. The people of Afghanistan are no safer now than they would be with no troops there, but even if American troops DID aid the Afghan people, the war has gone on for a decade and cost $1 trillion, nothing has really been achieved, the defence budget is overblown and the USA has plenty of problems of its own.

Libya was different. Few people opposed that action, just the fact that Obama didn't get Congress to vote on it (as he should have).

There should be a poll option:

"I couldn't care less about the people of Afghanistan, I'm just glad the troops are coming home."

'If the US had never interfered to begin with the Soviets would have created an Afghan Government. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed that Government would have been independant and may have even gone democratic. Now of course I believe that the American's did what was in there best interest at the time and it was likely the best move. However the US abandoned the people of Afghanistan they should have sent troops and advisers to Afghanistan as soon as the Soviets pulled out. They should have done everything possible to stabilize the country and ensure a smooth transition of authority. Instead the US turned a blind eye to Afghanistan and allowed horrible atrocities to be committed until finally the US was attacked.'

If you knew anything about history, real politik and geo politics then you would know the above was IMPOSSIBLE in a political and historical sense.

History Lesson - The Soviet Union pulled out but their propped up Marxist Government fought till the very end and continued to receive Soviet aid for a few more years yet.

Real Politik Lesson- The aim of the US was to kill Soviet soldiers and give the USSR their 'Vietnam'. Nothing to do with noble ideals of Afghan freedom from Soviet backed tyranny. In fact the mujahadeen factions that received the most US aid (via Pakistan) were the most extreme and blood thirsty ones. This would of course later come back to haunt the US. A term the CIA coined as 'blowback'.

Geo Political Lesson- Are you seriously suggesting the negotiated withdrawal of Soviet troops would envisage the introduction of the US military into a nation going through civil war? Also see 'History Lesson' as to why it would not be possible.

They shouldn't pull out...They should finish inside *snigger*.

I don't know.

There was no justification to invade a country in order to attack a non-state entity.

Of course we should leave.

Practically speaking, well it hasn't exactly helped anyone but the oil barrons (Shell, BP, Exxon, in addition to the Saudi Oil Field owners) to threaten the oil supply. Were still paying way too much for the stuff.

The mention of democracy, and state rebuilding, is only relevant because the media monopoly tells you it is. Its really not.

Pulling out is a myth. 

Im living proof

Well if pulling out in a certain sticky situation is a good thing then I suppose pulling out of Afghan is also good.

To my knowledge that statement is false. Several big mineral companies around the world are interested in investing in Afghanistan. Their are roads to many mines and the Nato forces have worked very hard to make infastructure capable of allowing the mining of these minerals. Fact is multinational corporations don't want to operate in a country who's Government cannot protect their facilities.

Fact is the mineral deposits in Afghanistan are worth over 3-trillion dollars. If Nato and the Government forces can protect those facilities Afghanistan could very well increase its GDP and even become one of the wealthier countries in the region. These minerals are worth a fortune and the US and her allies stand to gain a lot from exploiting the minerals.

Another major reason for the lack of infastructure is the fact that the country has been at war for forty years. But since Nato has been in the country roads have popped up across the country. Electricity has been provided to some areas and actual businesses have begun flourishing in Kabul and some other major cities. Its like Afghanistan was in the stone age when Nato invaded you can't expect the country to be in the modern age within ten years. Development on this level takes decades and needs to be maintained in order for the country to become self sificient. I am not saying Nato should remain in the country for decades but I do think that they need to remain until the Afghan Security forces can protect their development projects and most of the people before Nato pulls out!

How is it selfish to suggest Coalition troops should remain in the country till the countries security forces can actually protect the people. It is the US that caused the Taliban and Al Qaida and then the US that invaded after 9/11. The US is responsible for around 40 years of war in the country.

#1. The ten year war with the Soviets would not have occurred if the US hadn't provided the weapons to militia. The Soviets wouldn't have cracked down as hard and when the USSR collapsed Afghanistan would probably be a more developed country with a Government capable of ruling.

@.Of course the US and USSR were enemies and the US couldn't really allow the USSR to hold onto Afghanistan. But once the militia's had defeated the USSR and had asked for foreign assistance the US should have put boots on the ground immediately or at least sent democratic advisors and military/police trainers. The US was responsible for the militia's having all those guns and they should have helped the militias transfer power to a Government. But the American Government and people didn't give a crap about the Afghan people and left them to fall apart into a twenty year civil war.

#3.Then the Taliban finally restores order after 20 years of fighting. It is an extremist Government that should never have been allowed to rule. The US does absolutely nothing to help the people of Afghanistan against the Taliban which they are soley responsible for arming. Then Al Qaida an organization which was also partially armed by the American Government strikes at America, so the US rains hell down on the country of Afghanistan toppling a Government they were fully responsible for creating because they sheltered a terrorist organization that the US had armed.

#4.Then before the Government is capable of defending itself and its citizens the US announces it will make a full withdrawal by 2014. The US military leaves millions of democracy supporters to face execution from the Taliban. Everything America did for Afghan's will be lost within years. The people of Afghanistan will likely then be thrust into another 10-20 years of civil war before the US once again has to intervene because Afghanistan is responsible for harboring yet another terrorist.

It is very selfish for the western countries who have not been persecuted who have not been in a constant state of war for about 40 years to say to those citizens of Afghanistan that we are leaving because we don't like the fact that a few of our soldiers are dying and that we are spending some money. How much more selfish can you get?

Personally if I was Nato, if I had to start drawing down forces I would start in the secure provinces first. Their are only a few but they could be drawn down to almost non-existant. Then when those provinces have been completely handed over to the Afghans begin drawing down non-combat troops. The troops that aren't training soldiers or participating in combat operations. Who am I referring to? All the troops with caveats. Nato should maintain its full troop presence in Southern Afghanistan till the bitter end (Not leaving any earlier then 2014). Then after the Government forces can handle security in say 45% of the countries Provinces begin pulling out combat troops from Kandahar and southern Afghanistan. Shuffle troops as much as possable to ensure Southern Afghanistan and areas under Taliban influence are handed over after they are secure.

I would say I'd suggest a full withdrawal of combat troops by 2020, beginning a withdrawal in 2014/15 at earliest. Then the Government should ensure that advisers remain in the country and that professional trainers