Seriously, one problem that affects just about all decision-making processes is the wearing of blinkers, to use an analogy. Often, not enough things that have an influence are taken into account. Examples are the effect of energy policy on the “War on Terror”, the effect of drug legislation on same, and the effect of drug enforcement law on homicide rates. All these all-too-often ignored connections have something in common, and that something is that if the “energy source” for anything is cut off then that something largely stops. Examples of policies that would cut those connections; research into energy independence, and drug legalisation. If something is worth less, then the control of that something implies less power.

Take over the crops– divert them from going to illegal drug markets into the legal pharmaceutical markets (morphine, etc). Take away their money, give the farmers a better buyer.

The one problem I’ve always encountered with the Bush admin’s strategy is this ignorance of all other forms of the conflict. They can win militarily, but they are slow at figuring out how to win socially, economically and politically.

You certainly sound like you “belong” there, should you decide to return. Though I’m terribly sorry for the tragedy you experienced.

These comments are all a pointed reminder that there is no substitute for first-hand experience and observations – yours echo everything I have heard in countless conversations with my husband and others, who would go back in a heartbeat. Optimism in these circumstances usually requires some intimate knowledge of the situation as well as slow, stubborn persistence; a pretty high tolerance for everyday frustration; and the simple ability to discern opportunities where others only see obstacles. All of these I associate with the best people I know in and associated with the military.

Afghanistan is a decades-long “project” that will change form many times. I used to not want to hear this, but since coming to Colombia last winter, I have a much better appreciation for the long-haul effort, as well as deep sympathy and respect for those whose home it actually is. Wherever it is.

And ditto on the State Department. They should be your first contact for in-country commercial enterprise.

What does Pakistan have the will to do about Pakistan? I think is the more compelling question. We will support if they have the will. I think the new government is showing signs of moving in their own best interests, and that is a good thing.

“The best way to compel the allied forces to halt the border violations in the so-called hot pursuit of al-Qa’ida and the Taliban is to stop logistic support,” said Mr Khan”

Mr. Khan has a point. If all that were involved was US led raids of terrorist sanctuaries in the NW Frontier then I am certain Islamabad would be happy, more than happy to comply. But it is not. Al Quada is not popular with the majority of Pakistanis, The Taliban are marginally more acceptable only because the Pakistanis supported them in Afghanistan at one time (sort of like hammas v PLO), and despite the large numbers in population, the hard line conservative tribal elders are not especially fancied by the Pashtuns themselves.

But I would dare say the population has much in common with the notions of the folks who were involved in the whiskey rebellion. The culture is different, but it reflects an adaptation to a particularly rough climate and rougher geography. They did not choose to move there.

The World cannot afford to allow the institutions that be to allow more terrorist training to continue. There is not an option but to settle the matter. So the questions is do we settle it in a way that makes more of the residents friendly toward us, or in a way that continues the climate created by Balfore?

There are a lot of very large questions that need to be answered, and while they cannot be answered by guns alone, security is I thing one of the first and certainly the most important part of resolving the matter. Have the kinds of options discussed above is just as necessary.

Thanks for another very lively and informative thread. The best ones I think are the ones where I am caught up reading and not tempted to respond.

In Pakistan, the government has provided tribal paramilitary troops with over a million dollars in cash to buy weapons and ammunition in local arms markets.

Since the peacekeepers are the only source of order, and essential supplies, they are often disliked. That sounds strange, but the peacekeepers are foreigners, and the locals tend to expect miracles. When the miracles don’t happen, anger follows. If you didn’t have irrational attitudes like that, the area would not have developed the instability that brought in the peacekeepers in the first place.