I'm hopeful that the allied forces will make headway in the region. The philosophy outlined by the Marines makes sense, but the terrain is harsh and so much is not known. We've learned from other missions in both Afghanistan and two years ago in Iraq that earning local support isn't easy. Like most everyone, I'm waiting to see how it turns out. My hope is that the Poppy production and trade will be slowed and that injury to the American and British troops will be light. Nothing coming out of Afghanistan is is clear or straightforward. The Marines claim they are making history. The most positive spin is perhaps essential for morale. It will be interesting to see if footholds turn into area control, communication with locals turn into local support, and that Taliban support in Afghanistan follows Iraq's example, but history shows that luck for both American forces and their enemies is frequently more significant than the most brilliant military plans. My prayers and hopes are that the allied forces get lucky.

Stop the world, I want to get off. This is the same movie we have seen over and over again ever since Vietnam – the good ol USA chasing after the grand chimera illusion delusion of "victory" over the Taliban, bin laden, and all the other crazies in the middle east, near east, island chains and subcontinents. There is no "victory" to be had in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq. Has anyone looked a map of the terrain in these hell holes before launching these mind less incursions into no man's land? Clearly not! Bin Ladin must be laughing in his goat's milk at the stupid, gullible Americans who are so easily sucker punched and deluded into coming to his neighborhood to fight his war on his terms with the goals of bankrupting the West and bleeding the USA to death by inflicting ten thousand million paper cuts. This grand incursion, like Vietnam, is the wrong war, in the wrong place, on the wrong terms and can only end in the destruction of the American military effort (while bankrupting the economy as well). Bin Ladin will have achieved all of his stated and well publicized war aims. Bush, Chaney and now, sadly, sadly, Obama are all guilty of the greatest hubris in thinking that this cockroach enemy can be flushed out of the hills, valleys, caves, crannies, and what have you of God's most hideous terrain on planet earth. I feel sorry, truly sorry for the poor American soldiers who have been sold the bill of goods that they are accomplishing anything in their present combat roles. No wonder 5000 vets committed suicide last year alone! We must not forget the hard earned lessons of Vietnam. Must 50,000 American die in Afghanistan before we come back to our senses? I pray not. Happy 4th of July! No More Vietnams! No More Iraqs! No More Afghanistans!

Doesn't everybody know already that these "wars" are just to fuel-up the weapons industry and possible oilducts?

The afghan people in general have no education, no culture, no national culture, and no western values whatsoever, therefore, no investments will ever turn that country into an "ally" of the US.

I think the US should just do enough to keep the terrorists under control and use the rest of the money at home or in Brazil for example.

Regards,

This is not an example of Obama’s first test in Afghanistan, this is simply another example of how the United States Military will defeat our enemies.

The kidnapping of one soldier says nothing about the reinforcements being sent to Afghanistan. To say it's "not a good start" is not particularly apt, or even fair. If anything, what the kidnapping shows is the NEED for those reinforcements. They haven't all arrived, much less settled into any routines – you can't have a poor start until you HAVE started. The kidnapping shows that the militants are still powerful there, which is precisely why the reinforcements are needed.

And please, please! Don't call this a "surge" – the label already has so many barnacles of questionable connotations that using it to describe this influx of reinforcements can only be prejudicial to the readers. It tends to equate this military move with the one Bush instigated in Iraq. It is, therefore, a "used up" term. Not only are both reinforcement moves wildly different, but the local cultural ramifications are entirely different. These two military moves are profoundly different, so we shouldn't call them both by the same term, "surge." Find another.

I'm not dissing Becky Anderson; I think she merely chose some terms poorly and leaped to a few hasty conclusions. Nor do I think the Brits failed, except to the extent that their military involvment was inadequately planned and way undermanned. They did the best they could with the inadequacies they were dealt. I see no shame on them at all.

While it makes sense to improve the economic status of the Afghani people, so they're less likely to work for the militants for pay, we should keep in mind that Afghanistan is NOT a democracy. Building their nation should also be their own baby to spank. Nation-building in Islamic states is merely a drain on our treasury – how much have the countless billions done to rebuild Iraq? Nation-building, it seems, is really Halliburton-building. I want no more of it.

The constitution of Afghanistan – the one Bush helped them write and which he (in his abysmal ignorance) approved – says that no law written can offend or violate Islam in any way. Bingo! Instant Islamic State. Follow this link to read the darned thing for yourself:
http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/current_constitution.html
Or you can just Google "Constitution Afghanistan" and find it that way.

Democracy? In a pig's eye it is.

So why do our own media keep referring to it as a democracy? Aren't they supposed to do their homework on things like this? Isn't it kind of BASIC for the public to know whether Afghanistan is a democracy or an Islamic State? Whatever happened to "the public's right to know"?

If Becky Anderson is doing only half the job, she's got a lot of company – they're all keeping us ignorant. WHY?

Do you think a real democracy can have religious courts which can execute someone for switching to a religion other than Islam? Do you really believe that having the right to vote equates to democracy? It is only one of many parts, and is by no means a defining one. People could vote in Zimbabwe, too. Even Saddam held "elections." Holding elections is often little more than a veil for a dictatorial regime.

So we need to keep these realities in mind. If Afghanis want – and have – an Islamic State, our policies should be formulated based on that reality. We can still help them build their economy, feed their people, etc., but we shouldn't expect anything from hatred from them.

It even calls itself (as does Iran) an "Islamic Republic." That is a total oxymoron, a total contradiction in terms. There can never be an Islamic Republic, because genuine democracy is automatically precluded by the "Islamic" part. The "Republic" part is merely an overlay, a veneer to make it appear to be a democracy. When it is anything BUT.

I'd REALLY like to see our media get honest with us about things like this. There is no excuse for this collective imposition of ignorance on the people. You may be sure, though, that Obama knows the real score – he's a scholar and thoroughly does his homework. And for now, he may think our ignorance is bliss – and he's probably right, to a large degree. But he WILL deal with the reality as it truly exists. I hope that'll be enough.

And we should keep our eye on the ball – the real ball: to incapacitate the Taliban/Qaeda organizations (wherever they may be), so they won't have the ability to plot future terror attacks on the free world. As of now, the main hub is in Afghanistan/Pakistan. To the extent that Pakistan pretends to be rooting them out, while assisting them "sotto voce," is the extent to which we'd have to do the job ourselves. Pakistan has to either get real about it or expect us to do what they've promised – yet utterly failed – to do. Their sovereignty does NOT confer on them the right to harbor enemies of the free world who would launch unspeakable death and destruction from safe havens within their borders. Their sovereignty is indeed important, but our security from terrorists is equally so.

Pakistan has given a strong impression that it's better for US to suffer new 9/11-type attacks than for them to root out the militants, many of whom support the present government, and are eager to help Pakistan wage its terror-war on India. They want to have it both ways, and it has cost them dearly in terms of status and respect in the world.

But Afghanistan is no better. Much of our fighting against militants within Afghanistan is done very much against the will of the government and/or the people themselves. Have you noticed yet that the burkha is back? It went byebye shortly after we ousted the Taliban (and the women, it seems were ecstatic about it), but it's back again, as strong as ever. What does THAT tell you about the attitudes of the government AND the people? A large percentage of our enemies are residents of Afghanistan. We have to go after them as earnestly as those who import themselves from Pakistan.

And when we do, they'll claim we killed "civilians." Some such claims are both true and inevitable, with the enemy hiding among women and children, but most of the claims will be intentionally misleading. After all, Taliban/Qaeda people don't run around in military garb – i.e., that makes them "civilians." Even when they're a lot more than that.

Karzai is merely a new Taliban, a redux, with a new set of faces running the government. That's unlikely to change, and we should seriously consider what that means in deciding just how MUCH of an ally this dude really is. Nor should we keep nursing the notion that we can actually "win hearts and minds" among Muslim populations. The Quran itself quite specifically prohibits any kind of genuine friendship with non-Muslims. Unless they abandon their faith, they MUST hate us. Do your own homework on Islam, and you'll learn things like that – for yourself. Bet you haven't done a lick of it.

As for the poppy production, the ideal solution would be to let them keep on growing poppies – but require the farmers to sell their entire harvest to legitimate pharmaceutical companies. The competition would ensure these farmers of good prices.

The only real snag is enforcing the requirement. Since the government is, in itself, a new version of the Taliban, and can't (or won't) pay the staff needed to enforce anything, there's no way to insure compliance. Even if the farmers themselves could earn more that way, and want to comply, the militant groups (including those within the government) would force them to sell the opium to them. Preventing that would be the major job of enforcement.

Nor is there any way to know how much of the poppy harvest the Karzai government is buying for its own terrorism efforts.

But it could be very profitable for the Afghani farmers, if done right. And, if enforced properly, it'd cut off one of the militant groups' best sources of revenue. And that source of revenue is...us. We love those drugs, don't we? We are the market that funds the militant groups, yet we don't even to slow down our demand. Even knowing that some future "9/11-type" attack was funded through our own druglust wouldn't change a thing, would it?

Are they putting stupid-pills into our water supplies?

You Americans are stupid. You don't know that Pak army has left the Taliban virtually intact and no major example can be cited to have been killed or captured in thier present fake operation against the Taliban.Pak army is not concerned about the massive Pashtun displacement and suffering.The Pujabi dominated establishment wants to use the pastun blood against the americans.If you want to solve the Afghan problem you have to look to the Pashtun problem on both sides of the border.

Don't forget the history of the 1970s- How did Afghanistan come to be what it is today? Both Afghanistan and Pakistan were minding their own business until those countries were exploited and indirectly used as battle ground between the US and Russia. The area turned into a battle ground for US/Russian interests. Also during those days India and Russia were close allies. With several years of battle field destruction, driving many millions of Afghani refugees into Pakistan, the US achieved its goals and left, which presented a great economic and humanitarian crisis for both Afghanistan and Pakistan with millions of Afghan refugees flooding into Pakistan. Pakistan was given no economic help to support the refugees. No redevelopment was done or funds provided. The two countries were left to their devices and it threw them a couple of decades backwards and into an unhealthy situation for their population. So let’s not be surprised at what we see today and let’s not expect too much or throw unnecessary criticism at them. Let’s remember we the Americans, are at this again, violating their sovereignty and once again causing civilian human tragedies. Lets hope this time, we are more humane and earn the hearts and minds of the people.

A decade ago, there were less then 10 per cent enemies of USA in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now USA has more then 50 per cent enemies in both the countries. Isn't USA waging the war to increase the enemy ??????

its a very complicated fight between extremist and Pakistan army the only way to win this war is by negotiating with them war is not the solution of every problem as it brings anger to people for America...

President Obama is figthig an enemy so far away, he fogets the U.S has a back yard theatened by Hugo Chavez and his 21st century comunism. When you hear Chavez taking you can feel his hate for all the amercian values, and for America itself, so please be awere!!!!

Afghanistan was an unsolved misery for fairly a long time,with its home grown world biggest drug manufacturing industry. Last forty years has seen many changes in the rule, finally in the hands of a Taliban rulers, as a secret base for foreign secret terror groups. Billions of profit earned in the sale of drugs sold abroad was utilized for developing terror on foreign attacks killings thousands of innocent civilians.

Making it so important for the international society to destroy the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and establish a true peoples democracy in the mountainous Afghanistan. Now it has become a major challenge for USA backed by NATO forces to destroy this twin threat to the modern society of drugs and terror.

Pakistan army intelligent services which was maintaining close relation with former Taliban rulers in Afghanistan had life threats to its new political leaders and Benazir Bhutto was killed. Forcing Pakistan army to clean all Taliban hide outs in its boarders areas. Which is helping a lot the USA led NATO forces a lot in cornering them and defeating them sooner than earlier as expected,

Simple Solution:
Just clean up Indian agents and their secret terrorist training cells operating in Afghanistan.

Per the recent Dawn newspaper article at the following link:
http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/12-proof+of+raw+involvement+in+terror+acts+given+to+india–bi-08

India is training terrorists in Afghanistan and injecting them into Pakistan. Recently Pakistan has presented that proof! What a wild world we live in! The cat is out of the bag! This is huge and very damaging for India’s image.