Is there any way for America to "win" in Afghanistan? Is Obama's surge meaningless? What other options do we have?

1. Yes, I completely agree with your plan. However I don't think there is a deffinition of what "win" means.

We don't really have a clear mission in place, so to talk about winning when we don't even know what winning means is hard to do. 2. No, sending more troops does not serve a real purpose.3.

I would vote for your plan 4. Yes, I have my opinions on this so called war. First of all I think that the american government needs to come clean about the mission of this war.It has nothing to do with spreading democracy in the area.

This really is just a continuation of the cold war with Russia. We have always been fighting a proxy war with Russia through Afghanistan. There are lots of natural resources that we want to secure before the Russians do.

The Russsians have know about this since 1986 and have been stripping the country of natural resources. We still live in fear that if Russia has access to all these natural resources they may once again become a super power and be a threat to the US. While oil is the main resource we are fighting over, there are really many other natural resources in Afghanistan that we want control over.

It is one of the best sources for natural gas, also a great resource for coal, also before wwII America was already exploring for oil and located many promising spots to drill. Afghanastan has a lot of non petroleum resources we need also we have found it to be plentiful in iron, chrome, copper, silver, gold barite sulfur, talc, magnesium, mica, marble, and lapis lazuli. Russians also found in the 80's that it was a potential good source of asbestos, nickel, mercury, lead, zinc, bauxite, lithium, and rubies.

With all of these potential sources of energy and valuable natural resources the United states could not just sit back and let Russia control all this. So we went in there in a military way under the guise of helping spread democracy. We traded our military services for access to these deposits.

War is never what it seems on the surface, these issues have so many levels of complexity that it becomes very hard to see the real resons we are in the country, so to say what it means to win a war becomes very difficult, America's goal seems to be to stay in the country as long as possible and pilfer the natural resources as long as we can. In my opinion if the trillions of dollars spent in Afghanistan were spent on developing sustainable energy systems in the US we would not have to rely on outside sources for our energy, the problem still remains however that if Russia had control of those resources if we left they may again become powerful enough to be a threat to the US, we should focus on diplomatic relations head on with Russia and not skirt around the real issue. If we devolop a friendly partnership with this age old enemy we would not need to keep an eye on them and constantly engage in proxy wars to keep them from having acces to resources, they already have laid claim to the previously unclaimed resources of the ocean floor in the arctic, not to mention the property claims they have made on the moon, they are positioning themselves to once again be a major super power we are not going to stop them in Afghanistan, we need to learn to be friends like we are doing with communist china, by engaging in global trade, China is so entangled in the US economy that they could never engage in war with us, we need to do the same with Russia.

Let's leave the poor people of Afghanistan alone and face the real problem with some friendly handshakes and some trade agreements. How many more people need to lose their lives.It is tragic. Think about what those trillions of dollars could do if injected into the research field of renewable resources like solar, wind, ocean, power we really need money to develop new battery storage, we are using battery technology that has not been updated in decades, when we used to put money into real scientific research on these things.

The link below is a great site that details all of the possible resources in Afghanistan you will see it is much more complicated that just trying to bring democracy to this country. Though it is much easier for us to control a democratic country by buying off leaders and helping out voting campaigns in return for favors later.

Hear Hear! I think your plan (which is actually common knowledge for most people) is the obvious right decision, wouldn't it be great to just ignore all the worn-torn areas of the world and sanction them to the point of revolution, there has got to be breaking point for those citizens, It's quite interesting actually how some Islamic nations (with exception to Iran) accept their dictators and put very little effort into becoming a Democracy. Afghanistan is a weird place, a destroyer of nations who think they can control it.

I always figure the way with dealing with the middle east would be to A) Become energy Independent - Stop funding those dictators! Find a way to put that money back into your own country. B) Aid democratic and humanitarian groups withing those countries (Just think of those billions of money that usually go to oil barons went to women and human rights groups?) A lot of these people are starving and poor - Give them aid, the kids will be like "Who gave me this" - and parents will have to reply "the Americans.

" - Taliban recruits a lot of kids by simply giving them food and shelter. C) Point every damn satellite you have on these countries and monitor the borders and places of interest. Replace the 100's of thousands of combat troops with 10's of thousands of spies, assassins, specialists and diplomats.

Investigate terrorists the same way police officers investigate cocaine rings. Shake down the bottom to find your way to the top, chop off the head.Oh... And for the record, what Obama is doing in Afghanistan is precisely what he said he would do during his campaign. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oPeJ5rzOWw (sorry for the dumb mashup video, but its the only one I could find with the quotes) --quote-- “It’s time to heed the call from General McKiernan and others for more troops.

That’s why I’d send at least two or three additional combat brigades to Afghanistan. We also need more training for Afghan Security forces, more non-military assistance to help Afghans develop alternatives to poppy farming, more safeguards to prevent corruption, and a new effort to crack down on cross-border terrorism. Only a comprehensive strategy that prioritizes Afghanistan and the fight against al Qaeda will succeed, and that’s the change I’ll bring to the White House.

€? --/quote.

Jason, The attention span of the American people is so short that we expect things to change quickly. This is not the way things work overseas. The youth of Afghanistan have been taught to hate America. They hate us for the things we have.

Their leader tell them that the reason they are repressed is because of the greed of America. They have no way to know that their leaders are the reason they have been held in the stone-age. I don't know the specifics of the President's plan, I do know a winning strategy of the troops on the ground. I have a family member who holds a very high rank in the Army.

He has spent time in Afghanistan last year. He gave a very good description of the role of the troops during the Iraqi surge. The biggest issue, prior to the surge, was our troops would 'take a hill and give it back at night.' The changed with the surge.

After the push into an area, the troops stayed and lived among the people. Not as an occupying force, but rather as mentors to the local leaders and members of the community. They also provided security to the area for free trade to commence.

For example, our troops provided an example that doing business didn't have to make bribes to get something done. The displayed professionalism and class to lead by example. The result of this was a dramatic reduction in the violence and more people being involved in the rebuilding of their country starting with their local community.

I hope that the President's plan contains similar elements. The people of the Middle-East have not had the freedom we take for granted. They don't know that a freedom and the free market can enable people, such as yourself, to become successful and rich.

They knew only corruption and repression. We originally went to Afghanistan chasing the terrorists that attacked our country. That mission included crushing the regime that provided aid and support to these animals.

A bonus to the fall of the regime was the freedom for millions of people. Afghanistan is an interesting place, in the way it is govern. The President of Afghanistan is growing a central government where there was none.

The country was, and still is, ruled by chiefs. These chiefs control areas that have been divided up hundreds of years ago. Most of these chiefs are working with our troops to evolve their areas to better the lives of their people.

There is a book you should read, 'Lone Survivor' by Marcus Luttrell. S book starts with a description of his SEAL training. The book goes into the mission that resulted in the worse loss in Navy history.

You need to read this book. You'll have a different view of our troops and the political BS that lead to the loss of his three other members and a many other trying to save his team. I believe we should have gone in with overwhelming force to kill all of the bad guys.

Then assist the people of the country to get back on their feet. Stay long enough to ensure corruption doesn't return and provide security for the people. We tried to surgically attack the enemy.

This has resulted in extending the war. The media, whose attention span is 45 seconds, doesn't understand nor does not want to understand the process of winning these wars.At this point if we just pull out, the resulting power vacuum will repeat Vietnam. Contrary to the history currently being taught.

We did win the Vietnam war. The exit we made resulted in the murders of +2 million people that were fighting with us. Look up the Mung people.

We need to give our troops ANYTHING they need to win. If we are going to jerk them around, bring them home now. They should not be used as political pawns.

Jeff.

Yes your plan is good. I'll vote for it if I would be a USA citizen. I think everybody wants USA out of those countries, including me, since you guys have some bases in Romania... However I don't agree with two things in your question.1."and leave their barbaric belief systems behind".

What do you mean by barbaric belief systems?2. "annihilate their terrorist and weapons with our superior technology". As a leader NEVER underestimate your opponents.

It is the biggest mistake. As far as I know, USA did this several times in the past....i.e. Pearl Harbour...so, that's not the way to go.... Best regards, Vladis.

1. ) your plan is good Jason, 2. ) his plan will no doubt get more innocent men and women killed in a war that is not ours to fight any longer.3.) your plan of course.

4. ) no I do not have a better plan This war to me, seems to be a power struggle. We are the big bad bully of the play ground saying give us your etc or we will do this.

The big bully would say we do not like the way you dress, talk etc be like us or we will beat you up (or in this case shot people). Those people do not wish to have our help. They do not wish to change religion, their dress, their behavior etc. Who are we to say our way is better than theirs.

Come on man we got people starving all over America, poverty is here, people get bullied everyday here on the streets of America. My nephew is over there fighting a war he believes in, and most of our immediate family do not share his views. He is daddy to five little girls, 1, 3, 5, 9 and 11. The older two want to tie him in a closet when he comes home in December so he cannot leave, the 3 year old holds his photo at night and talks to him, the six year old wants Santa to come and says he can skip the presents as long as her daddy comes with santa.

Sad as heck to see Zoey with all of her curls shaking as she cries and pleads with all santas locally to keep the presents she wants her daddy.My nephew left here on January 5, 2009 to go over there and he will GOD willing be here on Christmas Eve. Sorry but when someone talks about this war, I see those little girls and man I cry.

Jason I agree with your suggestion but let me give you a more better way to not only solve the problem of Iraq and Afghanistan but solve the overall problem of Terrorism and bring actual Peace in World. Ban or sanction all the companies that produce Weapons. Simple Indeed!

But will you sanction your own country? US of A No Terrorist in Iraq or Afghanistan or infact anywhere in world can fight even a minute without his weapons and where do you think they get Weapons from. China, Russia, Germany or Isreal?

Sanction Them All. You can sanction Iran for developing Nukes but cant sactions chinese companines because you need China. But do you know which country in the world is the largest exporter of Weapons?

Its You. US of A. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters USA has been the largest exporter of Weapons since 2000 or maybe way beyond it.

But will you ever sanction your own country. Hell No! You can't surely sanction your own country or your own companies.

You will better bailt out them if they went to recession. Oh yeah! And US didn't bail out any defense company.Am I Right!

Thats because they are making hefty profit exporting weapons to not only you but even your enemy. So why need a bailt out. Nukes may be Weapons of Mass Destruction in future whenever they may be used but Small Scale Weapons like AK47 are the WMD right now.

Bann them all. Sanction all those countries that make them. Any country that enriches Uranium may not be surely going to make Nuclear Missiles from it which kills people but any country or company that makes AK47 is surely making it to kill people.

AK47s are means to used for that only. Regards Tajim.

Let's get our ducks in the right order here Jason: - 1. Your disappointment that President Obama has not lived up to hope/hype is understandable and I can only offer my sincere condolences. 2.

Your idea has merit, more than that you seem to have reduced the problem to its essential problem: the power to affect the way everything in the modern world works is held in the hands of zealots who wish to turn the clock back to the days prior to the Crusades. 3. The problem is that to ensure we, the freedom loving, democratic societies of the world are secure from these zealots we have to fight.

This shouldn't prevent us defining the search for clean energy independence as one of national strategic importance and pushing that as hard as the war on terror is being pushed. 4. The other problem with de facto isolationism is what it does to your allies and potential allies.

Story teaches us what happens when the US stands by. The world as we know it changed even before 9-11 since then we are seeing a new type of World War where the borders and enemies are never clear. We do need new answers and kudos for thinking of that.

The main error in US policy here is in trying to westernise / democratise these countries - it should not be the concern of the US to dictate the type of regime of any country unless it poses a direct threat. Regime change was very effective in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than sending drones, a military assault to effect the destruction of inhumane / belligerent regimes would be a real deterrent against future posturing.

Go in, topple the bad guys, get out. It's a bit like weeding the garden. Of course weeds grow back, but in less numbers each time.

Democratization would take place over time, by the efforts of the new regimes themselves. So, step 1 - announce this is the new policy; step 2 - get out of Iraq and Afghanistan with immediate effect; step 3 - wait until bad terrorist supporting regime re-establishes itself (inevitable right now), then use massive force to topple it; step 4 - withdraw without setting up a puppet government. Rinse and repeat.

!. "As such, I'm in favor of leaving the middle east and focusing like a laser on becoming energy independent. We can then disengage from the dictators and religious zealots we're doing business with because of our dependence on their oil."

Out of the top ten countries that the US imports oil, only two are actually middle eastern countries(Saudi Arabia and Iraq) The rest are Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Algeria, Angola, and Colombia. I am in favor of reducing the US consumption of oil to combat global warming, but the idea that all the oil we import comes from the Middle East, thus supporting dictatorships, is a bit of a myth. "Over time they may, or may not, come to our way of life and leave their barbaric belief systems behind."

The US's way of life was once "barbaric. " When our country was created, we enslaved Africans, committed ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, and provided very few rights to women. I believe we as Americans must be careful when we call others barbarians because we ourselves were not so civilized."However, we will not need to worry about this as they will have little reason to hate our way of life because it will stop impacting them with our nation building.

" The current institutions in Afghanistan are corrupt but most Afghans prefer this imperfect govt. Over Taliban rule."In the off chance they still hate our way of life enough to try to destroy us we can simply, and sadly, annihilate their terrorist and weapons with our superior technology (i.e. Drones).

" This tactic of using technology to kill terrorists with little or no boots on the ground has been tried against Al Qaeda by former President Bill Clinton. This tactic failed by not preventing the attacks on the twin towers. People need to be reminded that even though terrorists have been killed by Drones, the information that was needed to know where those terrorists were in the first place were provided by people who were actually on the ground.

The argument against pulling out of Afghanistan is best sum up by Joshua Keating in an article for Foreign Policy. --Quote-- The consequences of leaving Afghanistan to its own devices are vastly more serious than advocates of immediate withdrawal often like to admit. The Taliban would likely overrun the tottering Western-backed government, which could conceivably lead to a full-on civil war between Taliban-supporting Pashtuns and anti-Taliban non-Pashtuns in the north of Afghanistan.

Pulling out would constitute an abandonment of Afghanistan's population -- particularly its women -- to the whims of the Taliban. Even if most Americans can live with that, they probably can't live with the boost that an Afghan victory would give to the Taliban and various other militant groups in neighboring Pakistan -- a nuclear armed state where the geopolitical stakes are even higher. --Quote-- 2.

I mostly agree with Obama's plan but I would like to know more details about the plan. For example I would like to know how 30,000 troops are supposed to be flown in within 8 months when there are very few airstrips in Afghanistan capable of handling all that equipment and personnel. Also I would like to know how he is going to combat corruption.

3. Between Obama's and Jason's plans, I'm going to have to go with Obama. 4.

I personally support the COIN strategy being adopted by the administration that includes speeding up the training of Afghan security forces and having American soldiers provide security in Afghan cities. However this plan leaves out Afghans who live in rural communities. To solve this I believe special forces units should be distributed throughout these rural towns and try to create militias that would combat the Taliban until suitable Afghan soldiers and policemen are ready.

Of course the US must do other things such as combat corruption, but for now this what I'm proposing.

I believe that your idea is a bit naive. We are in Afghanistan because of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. If we were to pull out of Afghanistan now, the government there would very likely fall to the Taliban because they don't have the manpower to repel repeated attacks.

A take-over by the Taliban would put us back to where we were on September 10, 2001 and Al Quaeda would again have a safe haven from which to launch attacks on us. Ignoring the situations in places like Afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan only work to breed ignorance and contempt - of both them and us. If we stablize the country, train up a military and police force to protect the people and the government ordained by the people we are taking away terrorist safe havens.

If we also provide education to the people (cradle to grave education) then we are providing them with the means to feed their families, build their country, and compete in the modern world. We also give them a positive view of us rather than the negative views they would get from the Taliban, Al Quaeda, and other extremists. I do agree that we need to become energy independent, but ignoring other countries with major problems is not the way to get there.

We are not in Afghanistan because of oil because they have no oil. That's why the country is so dirt poor. Their biggest export is heroine.

We need to teach the farmers better ways to cultivate food so they can grow enough to support their families and sell to others. Only by helping all people to stand on their own feet, will we defeat the likes of the Taliban and Al Quaeda. Your thoughts?

Afghanistan has little to no natural resources, there is no oil to hold the US to ransom over. The reason for the military action over there was the war on terror as that is where it was considered the source of the 9/11 attacks originated from. It's a shame more is not being done to stop the flow of opium out of the country as this is a major resource and source of income and funding.

Drones or any technology that removes human risk out of the equation makes sense but as always with such attacks innocents are also invariably victims which will always bring an up swell of public opinion resulting in more ill feeling towards the attacking countries. The reality is the current feelings of hatred towards ourselves in the West is not going to be fixed in one year or even in 10 years but more realistically over several generations..... once both sides stop attacking each other.... of course how you get to that point is the million dollar mahalo question! Dealing across the middle east, the proliferation of nuclear arms are difficult to ignore and not be involved in but these are world issues and not solely US issues.

Finding peace internally in the middle east, addressing how all the nation including Israel can find a common way forward are critical to finding stability in the region. Can the US or the world afford to turn their back on such issues? I apologise for having no answers...only many more questions.....

1. Great plan, unfortunately becoming energy independent means for many companies and their stock holders will lose uber amounts of money. I do not believe those people will stand by.2.

I feel Obama is stuck... just plain stuck. That region is called the Graveyard of Empires. Eeep!3.

I think leaving the area would be awesome. Of course doing so requires your plan to be implemented which brings on my point about your plan... did that make sense... hmmm 4. Currently oil is traded in US Dollars.

Getting out of that market and becoming energy independent would most likely threaten that setup which would nail the strength of the Dollar. One of those catch 22's I suppose. We would need to be the center of the energy tech world around the same time we got out of the oil biz.

Would be tough but doable.

Corporations will not allow this. There is no democracy, just capitalism and its run by mega corps.

1. Your plan to leave them alone, I agree. 2.

The Prez is going back on his work to remove troops and stop what Bush started. 3. I vote for leaving the country, but before doing and after all our troops are out, I'd level the whole place and it's surrounding countries that help them out.4.

There isn't a plan and It is useless to think of one, this has been a holy war since the day Christ was born. Leave it alone and let them kill each other off and stop wasting MINE and OURS MONEY!4a. Read Ted Nugent:' Ted,White, and Blue' or Audible.Com it.

The reality is that we cannot win in places like Iraq and Afghanistan via military might. They had it right in Vietnam, you have to win the hearts and minds of the enemy. Iraq and Afghanistan need schools and community development and unless we spend the money on those things, we can never "win" there.

I think the problem with the Obama plan is that not one person on the joint chiefs of staff wants to look at the reality of modern warfare. Wars are won in the media, not in the skies. The problem with your plan is that no matter how much sense it makes, we can't seem to get people involved in doing it.

At one point, people argued oil shale wasn't worth developing until the price of oil was over $70 a barrel. It's been there, and significantly higher, but no one is investing in developing our oil shale. People still get worked up when you talk about drilling in ANWR, but the reaity is that an oil operation there is unlikely to have the catastrophic impact that people claim.

Like the trans-Alaskan pipeline, it may even have a positive effect on the local wildlife. Better yet, we need to focus on using the energy resources that we have available. Illinois was chosen as the site for FutureGen, a coal-fired power plant that would have provided clean energy (via scrubbers) to several states and helped revitalize our dying power grid, but after Texas didn't get chosen as the site, the Department of Energy (under Bush) pulled the plug on the project.

I love the idea of energy independence, but until people quit shirnking in fear at the idea of nuclear power or reinventing coal-fired power plants, we are just spinning our wheels. Would I vote for your plan?Sure. I'd also be in favor of a plan that made the rest of the world acknowledge that they ahve kicked around the US for too long.

We discovered and built the infrastructure for the Saudi oil fields. American companies developed the Mexican oil fields. Around the world, Americans have been investing money for a century and then letting the local government nationalize it.

My plan would be to encourage, with profitability, American companies to invest in American energy and force the rest of the world to support itself without American investments.

Good points JC. Government has extended itself in more than 100 countries. If folks are wondering when we will get out of the Middle East, you may be disheartened that it will never happen.

Look at South Korea, Japan, Germany, Spain, UK, Turkey, Australia. Why on earth does the US still have a presence in these countries? War ended in Korea 4 decades ago, in Japan more than 60 years ago!

Sorry to say, but the US will be staying in the Middle East for a very, very long time. I agree that the US should focus on becoming energy independent, and I include nuclear in this mix (France has more than 90% of its energy in nuclear with no issues in decades). The US should shutdown bases in countries that are not needed.

The US government should become smaller and not bigger. Lets concentrate on ourselves for a a few decades and make this country great again. Lets stop modeling in other countries affairs unless there is gross human-rights violations.

If the US was as compassionate as the government lead us to believe, why does it do nothing for the people of Zimbabwe? If we as a nation keep our hands off of a place like Zimbabwe, we should do the same for other countries. Moving our military resources back to the US would allow us to still protect ourselves from harm.

We live in a false Omaba administration mind-set that things are getting better right now (I guess it helps that the government is the biggest employer of new jobs at this time to hide the real unemployment rate - 2010 census here we come! ). I am for capitalism with little regulations, and free markets where successful businesses work and unsuccessful businesses close down.

We live in a time where the 15th placed person in a contest at school still gets an award? Crazy as this sounds, but lets reward innovation and winners that are able to succeeded.

We are not as oil dependent on the middle east as most people think. Our largest source of oil is Canada followed by Mexico. Why stop at leaving the middle east?

Why not leave Africa, South America and many other locations that receive our aid? Leave the UN. The amount of money we spend on propping up corrupt governments and the UN could go towards lowering taxes and reducing the size of the government.

I agree with you, the troops should be home -- being there only increases the chance of radicalizing middle-eastern. Obama is just more of the same, but even worse. Just to show how much of a liar he is, check this 2007 clip: youtube.com/watch?v=4LsSppYxSHk "You can take that to the bank!"

Got it? :).

1. Great plan, we should have done it a long time ago. Let those guys live their lives the way they want to.

Let's stop being the world's police and savior. We've got our own problems to solve: education, healthcare, fuel etc. 2. The guy can't win.

He doesn't send more troops, he's got the armed forces in a rage, he sends more troops, everybody starts screaming another Vietnam. 3. Jason Plan 4.

Nope.

I think your plan and question is racist. The United States is not in Afghanistan to help the people they are there for their own selfish needs and until the US embraces the ideas of democracy and equality and stops imposing dictators in the region there is no hope. Once the US, and you, leave their barbaric belief system behind and stops hating other people because of their way of life there will be some hope for the future.

I argue something urgently needs to be done. The only question in my mind is whether or not the American military is the right crew for the job. Leaving the area unstable is not an option in my view; here's why: Afghanistan and Pakistan have been the topic of many national security discussions in the United States over the past several years.

We vividly learned about the terrorist threat coming out of Afghanistan after the September eleventh attacks on the World Trade center and the Pentagon that killed nearly 3,000 people. In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election the debate shifted away from Iraq as being the central front in the War on Terror to the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, currently under the control of the Taliban. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden continue to argue strongly – as they did during the campaign – that fighting the terrorist safe-havens in Afghanistan and Pakistan is vital for America’s security and for the security of South Asia more broadly.

Since President Obama took office he has made good on his promise of shifting the focus back to fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Consequently, this past July was the deadliest month for coalition troops in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 (icasualties. Org).

Knowing that the lack of stability, security and the rule of law in Afghanistan and Pakistan can breed extremists and impact the security of countries around the globe, understanding the causes of their instability, then, becomes vitally important. Why are these countries so unstable? Have the two countries essentially failed?

What challenges does each country face to becoming more stable? What has been the response from the international community? How has that response affected their stability?

Looking deeply for the answers to these questions I have found that both countries have major demographic challenges, are economically unstable and have governments that are widely viewed as illegitimate and corrupt. The countries have also lost control over vast regions of their territory. I believe that the issues we see in Afghanistan and Pakistan today result from a Pakistani government that is failing and an Afghani government that has already failed.

Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, has not yet failed because it is being held together by its relatively good economy – although it is currently unstable and on the decline because of the recent global economic downturn – its strong military and very generous aid packages donated by the international community. These foreign aid packages pour into Pakistan because it is widely recognized that a failed state in Pakistan could have grave consequences for many if their nuclear weapons were to fall into the hands of extremists. Afghanistan has no such weapons.In Afghanistan therefore, the focus is primarily on nation building.

In Pakistan, it is to attain and preserve greater stability. To get a deeper understanding of the current state of the two countries it is necessary to begin by outlining the factors that determine their weaknesses. One of the overarching factors that are used to determine the level of a state’s strength or weakness is its capacity to control its own territory.

Max Weber calls it the state’s capacity to legitimately monopolize force within its own borders. Applying this first criterion to Pakistan, one notices that the Taliban are fighting the government for control of over seventeen percent of the total area of Pakistan (Cordesman, 94). Baluchistan – the largest province in Pakistan – is currently home to the latest of many attempts at secession by its inhabitants, the Balochs.

Adding the two territories together one finds that the total area the Pakistani government is struggling to control rises to a staggering sixty percent (Cordesman, 94). Similarly, in Afghanistan, the Taliban and other militias fight for control of nearly seventy percent of the country’s territory (Cordesman, 53). We can see that from this one criterion alone both governments face major challenges to their ability to control their own territory.

A state’s ability to control its territory is important in determining its strength but there are other social, economic, demographic and political factors that must be considered as well. The inability of the Pakistani government to provide many needed services to large groups of people is one such signal that it is a failing state. Services such as clean water, electricity and medical care are being delivered, via generous humanitarian aid packages that Pakistan receives from the United States and other international intuitions, such as the United Nations, to refugees and other internally displaced peoples inside Pakistan.

The large numbers of internally displaced people are a result of the fighting that is currently taking place between the Pakistani military forces and the Taliban in the Swat Valley, Buner, Waziristan and the Northwest Frontier Province. In addition, the government’s fighting of the Baluchistan Liberation Army in Baluchistan has also raised the number of internally displaced people. Refugees are pouring in from across Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan as people in Afghanistan flee the fighting between the American and NATO forces and the Taliban militias.

The Pakistani government, therefore, relies heavily on international aid to provide the needed services to the estimated three million internally displaced civilians that it does not have the ability to provide itself. This signals yet another way in which the capacity of the Pakistani government is limited. Afghanistan has much more serious demographic pressures than Pakistan that qualify it as a failed state.

Afghanistan, like Pakistan, has many internally displaced people resulting from the war that has taken place there since 2001. Not only are there internally displaced people but there are also over half a million orphans. Afghanistan is experiencing a youth bulge that has resulted in almost half of the population being under fifteen years of age (CIA).

The median age is just seventeen (CIA). Poverty, treacherous terrain and a large rural population make helping the internally displaced people difficult. Economic factors also play a big role in a country’s stability.

Afghanistan is a much poorer country than Pakistan with a large, entrenched, underground, lucrative, poppy-based illicit drug economy that fuels the Taliban militias. Pakistan actually has one of the better economies in the region with a relatively low unemployment rate of seven and one half percent (CIA). Afghanistan has an unemployment rate of forty percent (CIA).

Both countries suffer from uneven developmental problems between the urban and rural areas of the countries in the form of infrastructure development and income inequality. Pakistan, however, has a much more equitable distribution of income than Afghanistan.In Afghanistan, over half of the people live below the poverty line. In Pakistan, by comparison, one quarter of its population lives below the poverty line.

Although this number is still high, it shows that, compared with Afghanistan, Pakistan’s people are in a much better economic situation overall. Since both countries have a chronic youth bulge, both will need to quickly restructure their economies so that they can provide an education and jobs to these kids in the near future. From a political and military perspective, another sign that Pakistan is failing is that its military, police and security forces are becoming increasingly ineffective in policing all areas of the country, including the areas that are seemingly under its government’s control.

Terrorist attacks and sectarian violence have already killed 7,262 people so far this year with many more thousands wounded (satp.Org). In 2003 the number of people killed in terrorism-related and sectarian violence in Pakistan was 291 (satp. Org).

In 2008, the number had risen to 7,021 (satp. Org). These figures show a continuing rise in violence in the country where the perpetrators can attack with growing ease.It also shows that there are deep-seated group grievances within Pakistan that are being expressed through violence rather than a vigorous, legitimate participation in the political process.

Even though violence is on the rise in both countries, Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, does have a fairly robust and well trained military that is currently trying to regain control over some of its territory. The international community has been calling on Pakistan for years to combat the Taliban but Pakistan refused because they were more concerned about a military threat from India, especially after the 2008 bombings in Mumbai.It was not until early this year when there was a public, brutal flogging of a teenage girl by the Taliban in the Swat Valley and a cold-blooded killing of a couple by the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier Province that the government decided it was in the country’s interests to try and remove the Taliban from control. The success of the recent military campaign will determine how capable the Pakistani military is in its ability to regain control over its territory.

The positive sign is that they are capable of fighting but the success of the campaign is mixed. Afghanistan is also experiencing an increase in violence, especially since the United States has recently increased its troop presence in the country for the purpose of fighting the Taliban. The relevant factor is not the rise in violence per se; it is that the Afghan military, by itself, is not capable of effectively combating the domestic militant groups that have seized control over its territory.

The Afghan military relies heavily on outside governments – particularly the United States – for help in not only modernizing and equipping its military forces but in combating the insurgency as well. The help comes in the form of money, arms and training. Without the financial and military assistance of the United States and other NATO forces, the Afghan military would be wholly unable to prevent the Taliban from acting fully autonomously inside its territory.

This is one highly relevant and clear reason that Afghanistan is effectively a failed state.It does not have the capacity to protect its people on its own the way Pakistan is attempting to do. Both countries face major challenges to their hopes of regaining some stability. They both suffer from corruption problems that is the result of their relatively low GDP rates per capita; Pakistan’s is $2,600 per person while Afghanistan’s is only $800 per person (CIA).

The reason that corruption and low GDP per capita are linked is because low wages tend to drive people to find other, more nefarious ways to supplement their income. Challenges for Pakistan specifically are: its continuing struggle to regain control over its territory, its judicial branch is prone to presidential influence, its relatively strong military can have too much influence in its politics, human rights violations are common in the country, its security apparatus is weak and its high youth population will eventually need to find jobs. First, as has previously been mentioned, the campaign to take on the Taliban and the Balochs is continuing with varying degrees of success.

The international community does remain committed to Pakistan’s military success because of the strategic importance of Pakistan’s stability. Second, the reason Pakistan’s judicial branch is influenced by the President of Pakistan is that the justices’ tenure are subject to presidential approval. This fact can influence the justices’ decisions if they are trying to win favor by the president to have their contracts renewed.

Third, the government is struggling to become more legitimate. Recently, its legitimacy has improved slightly because of the resignation of former President and military general Pervez Musharraff – who gained power in a military coup d’état – followed by the democratic election of a civilian president. The military, because of its strength, still has the capacity today to overthrow the factionalized and fragile civilian government as it has done several times in the past.

Fourth, human rights violations in Pakistan are common. For example, during its campaign against the Baluchs in Baluchistan some families are claiming that their loved ones have disappeared without a trace (Amnesty). The disappearance of political dissidents or those critical of the government or military is systemic.

Fifth, the security apparatus in Pakistan is not strong enough to tackle the rise of Islamic extremists and terrorists that not only kill Pakistanis, but that also cross the border into India striking civilian targets there. This further cripples the already fragile security situation between the two rivals (Cordesman, 93). Finally, the median age in Pakistan is twenty (CIA).

The economic and educational apparatuses will have to find a way soon to incorporate this many young people, or the young population could turn to crime or extremism instead. This is already occurring to some degree as evidenced by the growing wave of attacks across the country. Afghanistan also faces major challenges of its own because its problems run very deep.

The Fund for Peace lists five core state institutions that need to be fully functional for a state to be considered stable. The five institutions are: leadership, the military, the police, the judiciary and the civil service. The rankings in each category range from zero to four with four being the highest.

For comparison purposes, the U.S. Receives a four out of four in every category except for its judiciary; it receives a three. To make another comparison, Pakistan gets a one in leadership, a three in the military, a one in the police and two for both its judiciary and civil service. Afghanistan’s rankings are zero across the board.

Its challenges lie at all levels of its institutions. This is, compared with Pakistan, one of the main reasons why Afghanistan can be considered a failed state. It needs to rebuild its military, police, judiciary and civil service.

One positive note that needs to be addressed here briefly is that the United States, NATO and the United Nations are working hard on Afghanistan’s reconstruction. The international community has stepped in to contribute manpower, financial and military resources all dedicated to Afghanistan’s rebuilding process. One other positive sign is that GDP growth in Afghanistan is high at seven and a half percent (CIA).

This is positive news but like Pakistan, Afghanistan will need to find a way to structure its economy to be able to absorb a massive, young population all needing an education and a job. Another challenge in the economic category for Afghanistan is its growing need for an educated workforce. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have suffered from a brain drain prompting the need for educated people, but Afghanistan has suffered far worse in this regard than Pakistan.

The decades of fighting that have taken place there as well as the years of direct, brutal and strict rule by the Taliban have led to Afghanistan’s substantial lack of capable, educated people needed to run its economy and government. The response of the international community today lacks the elements of meddling seen in years past. The U.S. Assisted the Taliban during its war with the Soviets in the form of weapons and training.

The Taliban have used many of those weapons against U.S.And coalition troops since the war began in 2001. Mentioning the shift from meddling to giving billions of dollars in stability funding is relevant simply to contrast the present with the past. Today’s attitudes show broad recognition of the seriousness and dire importance of maintaining stability in Pakistan, Afghanistan and South Asia more broadly.

This importance has seeped into the consciousness of the international community with the motivation that only the sobering reality of the fate of some sixty nuclear weapons, capable of killing millions of people can provide. As it has been shown, the failure of the state of Afghanistan is evident in the ineptitude of its state institutions. The majority of its territory is controlled by autonomously functioning groups that the government cannot combat effectively itself.

Pakistan has many serious challenges that continually pressure it towards failure. Hopefully, with the continued support from the international community, Pakistan will be able to stabilize its security situation, win the fight against the Taliban and regain control over its territory. When the Taliban moved into and took control over Buner earlier this year – which is approximately sixty miles from Pakistan’s capital Islamabad – skepticism about Pakistan’s willingness to confront the Taliban grew.

The international community took a small sigh of relief once the Pakistani military moved into Buner, Swat and the Northwest Frontier Provience to combat the Taliban. The idea of the Taliban moving back into within sixty miles of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is sure to cause the international community to continue to recognize the importance of not letting Pakistan go the way of Afghanistan.

Now America won the physical war. But the left over problems are not easy to solve. At this point it is safer for Obama to bring back the troops instead of spending the money for fighting.

S staff cannot even prevent a party crasher from entering in to white house!. Then how are they going to fight and win more complex things in a foreign country? Saddam is dead.

Let Iraq to build its own democracy. Afghanistan got enough support. Now just give the support for education ,finding jobs and starting businesses by them.

Just give their police and army the training and stop the direct fighting. There are troubles in the homeland. Keep your resources and efforts to bring up the economy.

Think of finding a way out, before you got crushed. Obama, are you listening?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.