Why NATO can't deliver peace in Afghanistan

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...556304,00.html

A long but good read, I think.

Forty nations are embroiled in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. Anyone who travels through the country with Western troops soon realizes that NATO forces would have to be increased tenfold for peace to be even a remote possibility. ...
Last year, 1,469 bombs exploded along Afghan roads, a number almost five times as high as in 2004. There were 8,950 armed attacks on troops and civilian support personnel, 10 times more than only three years earlier. One hundred and thirty suicide bombers blew themselves up in 2007. There were three suicide bombings in 2004.

.

Related: "What's important is to kill the Germans":
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...554545,00.html

Haqqani: You just don't understand: There is no need for special orders anymore. The mujahedeen are just doing what they are responsible for doing. To kill and attack Germans is the goal and that is clear to everyone. The entire chain and network is responsible. ... Yes, we lost some key commanders such as Mullah Dadullah, Osmani or Mansoor Dadullah, but just look at the history of the Taliban between 1995 and 1996. Back then we also lost two important main commanders -- Mullah Mohammad and Mullah Borjan -- but we still took control of Kabul and almost all of Afghanistan. ... The holy Koran forbids committing suicide, but it does not forbid the fedayeen. There is a huge difference. Suicide is when a person kills himself without any ultimate goal, but fedayeen strive for the ultimate goal, Islam. ...

[bradclark1]

One or the other would be lost. I guess the lost has been chosen.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

One or the other would be lost. I guess the lost has been chosen.

Pardon? I don't get what you mean.

[jpm1]

i think the talibans can't rule a country as from what i've seen they have intolerable doctrines in particular concerning women so we should fight them . the problem is Bin Laden does the guy simply exists

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Pardon? I don't get what you mean.

I've said numerous times that we are going to have to pick Afghanistan or Iraq to concentrate on. We can't do both so therefore we will lose one.

[Skybird]

And I was wondering about KIAs, and in what way what was to be expressed for what reason, and how to make sense of it.

[jpm1]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

I've said numerous times that we are going to have to pick Afghanistan or Iraq to concentrate on. We can't do both so therefore we will lose one.

withdrawal in Afghanistan is impossible for the US i mean what the opinion the US opinion would say if Bush (or the government) stopped searching the most probable Bin Laden's hideout a withdrawal in Iraq maybe could be possible because of the heavy losses there .??

Originally Posted by Skybird

And I was wondering about KIAs, and in what way what was to be expressed for what reason, and how to make sense of it.

as i've said before i think we can't let the country to talibans they are just unsensed fanatics even if the situation concerning Bin Laden is at least opaque i think we must stay and help the country to go foward a real democracy (personal opinion) but in the same time keeping in mind that a country history can be made by its inhabitants only so helping but never sending massive force