Although not a member of NATO Australia has 1500 troops stationed in Afghanistan; as Australians point out, their lives and the billion-dollar bill to support them - hinges on what the Americans decide.

One recent Australian report sums it up as -

…. polls show an increasing number of Americans want out.

The disenchantment is fuelled by rising violence, increasing US deaths, a perception that the US is not winning, and that the Afghan Government is inept, corrupt and inefficient.

At issue is whether the US should send more troops (US commander General Stanley McChrystal is reported to want between 10,000 and 40,000) and where they fit into a strategy aimed at shoring up an Afghan administration so it can ultimately provide security and some form of coherent government.

The primary aim is to prevent Afghanistan again becoming a base for al-Qaeda terrorists'

Along the way, the Taliban have re-emerged, using tactics taken from Iraq, exploiting the failings of the Afghan Government and the inability of foreign troops to provide security, and feeding on anger over civilian casualties inflicted by allied air strikes'



Officially, Washington "will not tolerate" the Taliban returning to power in Kabul despite their investment in Hamid Karzai who has encouraged Taliban political participation

It has been reported in the American press that Obama administration officials are signaling a slight shift, emphasizing the importance of the U.S. fight against Al Qaeda and its global ambitions while defining the group's Taliban allies as an indigenous movement.

However discussions on preventing a resurgent Taliban from "giving renewed sanctuary to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan" clearly forget that al-Qaeda had voluntarily left Afghanistan for Pakistan where there is a far greater aversion to foreign occupying troops than to Al-Qaeda

According to the Huffington Post some U.S. military and civilian officials in Afghanistan are now trying to negotiate with Afghan Taliban fighters to encourage them to "reintegrate."

Although Robert Gibbs said last week that if the ultimate goal is eliminating Al Qaeda, the Taliban is still a target. other U.S. officials made it clear that they are willing to consider some role for the Taliban in Afghanistan's government.
Asked whether the administration would tolerate any such role for the group, the State Department said it would be up to the people of Afghanistan.

"I think this is ultimately a decision for the Afghans," said P.J. Crowley, a State Department spokesman. "You solve insurgencies through political processes and reconciliation."

If militants are brought into the political system and choose to be part of it, "that would be a positive development.
There are a wide range of groups within the label 'Taliban,' tribal figures that are used to changing sides depending on what is happening at any particular time,"

So what is the war for?

And is the demonstration of additional force for -

'We need to show visible progress so that OUR publics at home know their sacrifices have not been in vain.

OUR citizens need to know that we are making progress toward our essential goal of defeating the insurgency and supporting the Afghans in their effort to secure and govern their own country.'
IVO H. DAALDER
U.S. Ambassador to NATO

And….......when did the intent of defeating the 'terrorists' become a war against indigenous insurgents?