>>>>>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.
>
>But the Taliban have just destroyed almost all of the poppy in the fields in the preceding season or so. They actually shook the whole market quite badly.

Not according to the BBC. The taliban controlled areas are the big producers..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7582018.stm

>
>Maybe that's the reason they had to go? IOW, sarkozm (*) be allowed here, tearing down statues of Buddha, enslaving women, inquisition-style religious micromanagement of every aspect of life was OK as long as the market was undisturbed... hmmm. One wonders.
>
>
>-----
>* (hm... how does one pull Sarkozy and sarcasm together, specially when there's no way the former would be involved in the case at hand :)
>One better: snarkozy :)