I am wondering whether Levine actually read more than the executive summary
of the Crisis Group study which he himself cited:

"The insurgents, of course, understand the importance
of violently disrupting the government"s capacity to
provide security and services. Since the Afghan security
forces still lack the ability to counter the insurgents
on their own, the security umbrella provided by
the international community remains vital if Afghanistan
is to stabilise. While it is necessary to emphasise
that foreign troops will stay as long as needed, the international
community must prioritise the building of
Afghan security and administrative capabilities and
assure the Afghan people that there are no long-term
designs on the region. Any talk of long-term U.S.
bases would, for instance, feed into nationalistic resistance
as well as neighbours" apprehensions. International
forces must also demonstrate that they are
accountable, by putting in place more transparent systems
to investigate and report on civilian casualties
and other complaints. Only then will they succeed in
neutralising the Taliban"s attempts to paint the foreign
intervention as an invasion and foreign troops as an
occupation force"

It's obvious to an honest reader of this report and Obama's
statements that they are on the same page. Levine
seems not to have noticed.

This article makes several mistakes. First, it does not mention the recent killings of Indian diplomats. Significance? The Taliban cannot be explained as an authentic expression of Pashtun ethnicity. In fact the Pakistani Taliban lost elections recently. The Taliban is financed by the ISI to undercut any Indian influence in what Pakistan considers its backyard. Second, Levine forgets that Obama has called for massive aid for Afghanis, including the Pasthuns, but such programs cannot be implemented without some security. There is no reason to believe that Obama also does not agree with Ahmed Rashid that Musharraf has mishandled questions of Pashtun autonomy. So Levine has made Obama's position seem more mlitaristic than it really is. It is in fact fundamentally political and economic. For example. he has only proposed 7000 additional soliders, many of whom would be involved in reconstruction or training the Afghani National Army. Third, Levine is dangerously naive about the threat emanating from the Taliban sanctuaries on Pakistan's side. Ahmed Rashid has traveled there, and he sees that they have the expertise, money and security to pursue weapons of mass destruction. Do remember the disturbing case of A Khan who has already sold nuclear secrets. Obviously the al Qaeda-Taliban terrorist alliance aims on winning Afghanistan and then moving on to Kashmir, hoping most probably to provoke a nuclear first strike by India. Levine would seemingly have the US sit idly by. Thank goodness Obama has more political courage than the naive, pacifist left.

My position is, we had from what i can tell (who knows any more) a clear mission in Afghanastan, that the people who attaced us were their,. We were actually successful in afghanastan, and i truly believe that if we had given it the true attention that it deserved, we would be leaving there by now or have left already. for all i know If president Bush had stopped worring about a country that was not even on the radar for 911, he may have actually caught bin laden, but he chose not to. we had an opportunity to Win in afghanastan, and win i say Win i mean- let those people develope the jobs they need to suceed. Hell the people started being able to go to school, women were able to get jobs, their government was barely off the ground whene almost did an about face. The point of going over their was to get bin laden. Didn't do that. and all that progress that we made, is really slipping away because their is proof that some of those groups are getting stronger, you know why? because we never truly got rid of them, we diverted our attention and there were enough people there to start it up again, not only that they started to recognize that we were stretched to thin and decided to pounce-Afghanastan did not have to become a "War" but when we went to iraq that is exactly what it became.

Thank You, Thank You, Thank You Thank You.

This is a point that nearly everyone, in the Corporate Media anyhow, miss.

The Taliban and al Qaida WERE never the same. Yet the media acts like the terms are synonymous.

How many Taliban who have been imprisoned and tortured are legitimate soldiers fighting for their country and government?

Americans have been very ill served by our Media. In the runup to the wars there was NOT ONE SINGLE television show that delved into the political, social or economic history of the nations we were poised to invade and occupy.

Your average American to this DAY probably can't tell you the difference between Shia and Sunni let alone the difference between Pashtun and Hazaras.

And I would bet that many of the so called Taliban are in actuality opium growers and buyers who are resisting the destruction of their business. Or simply Afghani's who simply don't want a central government. resistance to which is a LONG Afghani tradition.

In addition, the beliefs of the Taliban don't seem to be that much different from many of the War Lords we have empowered.

al Qaida on the other hand is a minority or a minority of a minority of Muslim beliefs. Supported by almost no one in the region. Osama Bin Ladin, after all was driven to the Ends of the Earth. Afghanistan.

How can Americans or their leaders make rational decisions when most don't even know who the players are?

Excellent point, but you're missing the real punchline here. The Taliban is a fundamentally Afghan or Pashtun organization, as you point out. But Al Qaeda is a fundamentally Saudi organization, and we will never make any real progress