What resistance? Resistance to what? Taken literally, your comment says "The resistance to ... the humanitarian mission ... is getting stronger." Is that what you mean---that the humanitarian mission is meeting resistance? Or do you mean the resistance to the occupation?

I mean the Taliban fighters who want to throw out NATO and overthrow the Karzai government. Sorry for the confusion.

In what way has the humanitarian mission been botched? What does that mean? Do you mean that mission has failed or is failing because of strategic decisions leading to poor security? If so, most observers would agree with you.

It's been botched because we are losing support. After the initial overthrow of the Taliban, we didn't put enough resources into 1) promoting economic prosperity, 2) hunting down remaining Taliban, 3) providing for enough security for #1 to happen.

We also have been way too cavalier about civilian casualties during this conflict - we just bomb locations when we get a tip that the Taliban might be there. More often than not we wreak havoc on some little Afghan town. Even if we get our target, we slowly engender a hatred among the population for our gratuitous violence - this plays into the hands of the Taliban, providing them either with more recruits, or at the very least making more civilians ambivalent instead of supporting the NATO mission.

Are you sure that merely restoring troop and other resource levels back to what they would have been without the invasion of Iraq would not itself produce positive results? Most observers agree that Iraq drained resources from Afghanistan, leading to increased violence from warlords and Taliban alike.

No, I'm not sure, but that is my belief. I agree that Iraq caused the Bushies to lose focus on Afghanistan. I just think that lost opportunity is going to be very difficult to get back. I think, even with a new focus on Afghanistan, NATO will focus on fighting the Taliban and not on bettering the lives of most people. I don't think we have the right focus (on winning support of the population vs. fighting terrorists), the required committment (i.e. staying power), or even the strategy and capabilities to win in the narrow sense by eliminating the Taliban.

I think that's about the only kind of thing that's worth any death anywhere. That, and preventing murders of and assaults on women who leave the house, etc. It's actually happening. What do you think of that?

It's wonderful. But the point is, you don't really want girls to be forced from school and to suffer violence at the hands of men again in a few years, do you? If you are ultimately fighting a losing battle (which I believe), then you should just cut your losses and go home. These benefits are not worth the cost, especially if the benefits are only going to be short lived.

The main problem I see in the video exchange is the constant repetition of the word "terrorist" instead of "Taliban." While there are still hardline elements to the Taliban, and purely terroristic acts do continue, that doesn't mean that the Taliban - terrorism. Since this is something you didn't address, I assume it's worth pointing out to you.

I am avare of the difference, and agree with you.

My feeling is that Afghanistan needs more and better security so that the more moderate elements of the Taliban can be brought into participation with the tribal/Kabul government and the extreme elements shoved to the side. Pure warlordism, such as in the Kandahar area, is also a problem that can only be handled with a combination of force, diplomacy, and cash.

Thus, my hope is that the "surge" is followed by dealmaking across the board that creates the possibility of sustained stability because the tribes and the Taliban all have an investment. I have no idea what Obama is actually planning to do.

I don't have a crystal ball, and I don't know the future. It's possible it will come out this way, and I sincerely hope it does. That sounds like a good outcome. That's just not the way I'd bet.

Sounds like we are mostly in agreement about Afghanistan. I reserve the right to cling to my pessimism concerning the final outcome, while sincerely hoping that your optimism proves warranted.

Also, I wasn't clear about the assaults on women---I didn't mean that they are being stopped, I meant the reverse---that actual acts of terrorism do occur and need a response, and that most Afghans don't support them. I know you didn't mean you thought that was wonderful. ;)

Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for not assuming the worst about me :-) Unfortunately, that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule, in such forums.