Last week I suggested that the Taliban extremists in Afghanistan are more of a local tribal resistance. Bombing them will only entice more people to fight on their site.
A Pakistani General agrees:
Lieutenant General Aurakzai said NATO was ignoring the political and military realities on the ground.
"The reason Taliban numbers have swelled is because moderates are joining the militants," he said.
"It is no longer an insurgency but a war of Pashtun resistance, exactly on the model of the first Anglo-Afghan War (in 1839-42).
"Then too, initially there were celebrations.
"The British built their cantonment and brought their wives and sweethearts from Delhi, and didn’t realise that in the meantime the Afghans were getting organised to rise up. This is exactly what the Afghans are doing today, and what they did against the Soviets."
This is how the first Anglo-Afghan war ended:
In 1841 the Afghans rose against the British in Kabul, killing both British agents and surrounding the British garrison. In early 1842 the garrison surrendered, and was offered safe conduct to return to India. However, the British army of around 14–16,000 (of whom over 10,000 were civilan camp followers; the military force consisted mostly of Indian units and one British battalion, (the 44th) was harassed down the Kabul River gorge and massacred at the Gandamak pass before reaching the besieged garrison at Jalalabad. The force had been reduced to fewer than forty men by a retreat from Kabul that had become, toward the end, a running battle through two feet of snow. The ground was frozen and the men had no shelter and little food for weeks. Only a dozen of the men had working muskets, the officers their pistols and a few unbroken swords. The only Briton to survive was Dr. William Brydon.
Either NATO, currently meeting at the top level in Riga, will find a way out of Afghanistan by negotiating with the Pashtuns, or it will be kicked out and will break over it.
With Mr. "Stay-the-Course" leading the pack, my bet is on the second alternative.