You are so right on that one. Afghanistan is really one large city run by a mayor and the rest of the country run by warlords still to this day.



>Evan,
>
>>Vietnam, Russian Afghanistan and Iraq are examples that support having a large number of soldiers, the US (actually NATO) Afghanistan experience shows that a nation can be conquered and occupied with a minimal of personel using high tech... and being seen as liberators and not conquerers.
>
>I would not bet on that one, despite the optimism in the link. The war in afghanistan is not over and peace and democracy up there is going to take decades, if achieved at all. There is a lot of discussion about this subject over here as the dutch army is taking over the job of american troops in one of the most violent provinces. The details from this don't really talk about a population that sees the americans as liberators. The american show a lot of musles but little to no improvements for the local citizens. I'm not saying that the dutch army is going to better, because the it is a very explosive and hostile environment.
>
>As for conquering (overrun) as nation, yes, you're right. But controlling it, is a total different manner. It takes far more than millitary action to have control over a country.
>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._invasion_of_Afghanistan#Nature_of_the_coalition
>
>>>Well mine is an Acer, built & dev. in Taiwan....
>
>>Perhaps. One could say this happened to the Middle East.
>
>Sure, that is why asia is a total different matter.
>
>Walter,