>>>>I could understand the attempt to chase 9/11 plotters in Afghanistan. But I don't think we should still be there. Its failed as a mission and every time unrestricted use of airpower kills a few more innocent civilians it fails a bit more.
>
>I think that is a mischaracterization on two points : "Its failed as a mission" does not accurately reflect the removal of the Taliban as the governing power and the reduction of the 'safe haven' area. Imperfect to be sure, but far exceeding October 2001 predictions. I think the mission of getting Bin Laden failed at Tora Bora, but I don't think anyone realistically thought the drug trade, Afghan war-lordism etc was going to change as a result of the invasion or occupation.
>
>"Unrestricted use of air power" is hardly accurate. Were it accurate, Tora Bora and the mountains of Wazihristan would be glowing in the dark.
>
>Look at the track record of anybody - for the last 3000 years or so - who has tried to invade or otherwise impose pretty much of anything on that area. I'd say given the challenges involved we're doing rather well (albeit with some very bad decisions thrown into the mix)


Here's some stuff from The Guardian for you to pick over. The bits about the terror trial failing because of precipitate US action are big news here. Even in the right wing papers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/10/1