Why do you idiots give Hitchens the time of day? Hitchens is someone who longs for a war between secular and orthodox Jews in Israel and says he will rejoice at seeing their blood spilt in the streets and running down the gutters. The guy is a fucking loon.

Ha ha ha!

Yeah, right. This is the biggest load of crap I’ve read in a while. As some people have already pointed out, it was never a matter of a “coalition of the willing”. It is also a glaring hole in the argument that the reason for going there was to get rid of Osama bin Laden given the fact that the guy is still alive and that George W. Bush has even said he doesn’t care about the fact he is still alive. So… what is the point of the war in Afghanistan?

I have asked this before and was told I am simply ignorant. But no one really has a good explanation.

That sounds good except: who receives that message and what does it mean to them; and what can they do about it? I think there are two types of states: One in which the government controls the whole of the national territory; it is the responsible agent. If an attack is launched, say, from that territory, the government can be held responsible. The other type of state is one in which the government (assuming there is only one) does not control all of the claimed territory. This would include states like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Philippines, Gaza, and so forth. In states like these, the government, if it exists at all, either can hide behind the false fact that independent actors take action it cannot control, or they in fact cannot control these actors. It is probably often unclear the degree of control the government exercises, as in Pakistan. In Afghanistan it is clear that the government exercises nearly no control over much of the country. This means that there really is no one to whom a warning message can be given. Power, such as it is, seems pretty much local (the only possible trans-local power centers being the Taliban and the central Govt; maybe there’s others, not being an Afghanistan expert, I wouldn’t know). What do we do in this situation? Do we immerse ourselves in intertribal conflicts and issues? Basically, it seems like, in Afghanistan and also in Somalia, there is no there there.

This is perceptive. The will to win was never there from the beginning and the history of events between Great Britain, Russia (USSR) and Afghanistan has been warmed over again and again in thousands of articles, few which have actually had a convincing understanding of the motives behind the historical events they outlined. Also, there has been a complete misunderstanding of whom is being fought.

It is widely believed that the Taleban were driven out of power (correct) by the Coalition (wrong). The Taleban were kicked out by Afghans supported by the west.

The Coalition has ‘lost the war of hearts and minds’. Afghanistan was a society which had absorbed diverse cultural influences for centuries and celebrated them up and until the Taleban came to power. (In the 1960s Kabul was the venue –staggeringly, when one thinks of the image the country has today – for an international exposition on modernist architecture and design).

Afghanistan’s open society has been wrecked by the Russian invasion, (Marxism, Soviet style) and the devious double game played by the Pakistani Intelligence Service.

Thousands of educated Afghan women and men have fled the country and many will not return for fear of assassination.

Some of the ‘Taleban’ are the discontented tribals who could be talked round. They have been ostracised by insensitive Coalition actions and or a distrust of Kabul. The Taleban faction which should be of real concern resides in Pakistan, has political and logistical support there and this must be eliminated. One cannot have dialogue with those whose basic positon is that we must convert or drop dead. The ’sick man’ of South Asia is the epicentre and fulcrum of the problem.

Twenty five years ago the name Kabul, if it meant anything, was a stop on the hippy trail, or a reference to a Victorian music hall dramatic monologue. It has taken two failing political entities to change that. The Coalition must prepare for the long run or give in. Giving in will not as, Guardian readers and the BBC believe, restore peace and harmony but simply confirm what the jihadists have always claimed: Its love of indolence will paralyse and then destroy the west.

The US, Britain, Canada and a few other members of the coalition of the willing went to Afghanistan to hit Al-Qaeda

I think you’ll find that the ‘coalition of the willing’ term related to Iraq. Afghanistan, was a NATO operation following the invocation of Article 5 whereby an attack on one member is deemed an attack on all. Australia and New Zealand have also contributed forces to this NATO op.

About Pakistan: It is becoming clear that it is terrorist central. See “All Roads lead to Pakistan” at http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/12/15/world/worldwatch/entry4668474.shtml

Face reality, we can not take the money out of drugs, so our only choice is to make that money out of the reach of our enemies.

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12267391

Though it might make no material difference in case of combat.