Samson
Póg Mo Thóin
I don't think so, the main problem is that the US has not learned from Vietnam, rather than fighting guerrilla warfare with guerrilla warfare which is a proven strategy (used by commonwealth forces) during the Malaya war against communist insurgents the US military sticks to major battles, tactical strikes and random searches for militants (the same failed strategy used in Vietnam). If the US stuck to guerrilla warfare, arming local warlords and building up the economy in Afghanistan then the war would have been over years ago, all the current situation in Afghanistan demonstrates is that the US military needs an overhaul and that some leaders at the top have to go, that is if the US really wants to win the war.The release of 2 confidentail UN "residual risk accessibility" maps show that insurgents have relocated from the south where the main focus of combat is occuring to other parts of the country. Areas that were safe are no longer safe and the country as a whole is worse off than 6 months ago.
The Wall Street Journal article has the maps at the following:
U.N. Maps Rate Afghanistan Less Secure - WSJ.com
This is another example of how not to occupy a country or fight insurgents. Sufficient amount of forces is necassary to occupy all of the country to keep insurgents from moving around the country to avoid direct contact with security forces. Now that we have committed to leave all they have to do is avoid any direct contact and do their little bombings and ambushes and eventually they will have the country to themselves and the Taliban can regain control.
PS: You would think after training the Taliban the CIA would have the good sense to realize the threat it is facing and be able to deal with it, after all it did train it.
Interesting point about the economy, I agree it's crucial. But outside of Opium, what does Afghanistan have?
Precious metals and mineral ore.