Gentlefolk,

Afghanistan was ruled by a regime which hosted al-Qaeda. Now it is scheduled for the first democracy in more than a decade – and some consider that a failure?

I was under the impression that the intent of regime change is to effect a change in official policy in the target state, not the extermination of vermin. If that is how we should consider American adversaries, is anyone suggesting we should be celebrating the Abu Ghraib prison activities rather than condemning them?

This transition was performed by Afghan fighters - and there are those who propose that US troops should have been used. The transition in Iraq was performed by US troops – and yet some criticize the demobilization of Saddam Hussein’s army. Fascinating contrast.

The Poles, Italians and Danes serving in Iraq – among others - will be disappointed to learn that they are not “real” Europeans. I trust the title “European” will be extended as a courtesy to the English soldiers.

Oh please; “loosing the flower of our youth”? If the reference was to the English casualties in, say, 1916 – 1917, then there would be some facts to support the claim. In the period during which you refer to the loss of 1,000+ Americans, the population of my home state of Maryland increased by more than 1,000 souls.

The War on Terrorism will NEVER end until people understand that it is not the same as conventional wars fought between national armies in the past. Al-Qaeda is an international organization without territorial boundaries, and is not bound by the Geneva Conventions, as are civilized nations.

I will agree that there is a danger in laying too much emphasis on al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden alone. There is no doubt that the core of al-Qaeda has been disrupted. It has lost its sanctuary and training camps in Afghanistan and is finding it harder to organize and fund its operations. As has been repeated too often, al-Qaeda veterans have been hit hard over the past three years.

But body counts are not necessarily the most useful way of judging progress because al-Qaeda is not a "normal" military entity and this war IS NOT a "normal" military struggle. For example, the group who carried out the Madrid bombing in March 2004 were not people who had been selected, trained or carrying out direct orders from Osama Bin Laden in the way the 9/11 hijackers had. None of them had been, I believe, to Afghanistan.

The more dispersed the foe is - the more it relies on local cells rather than people traveling into a country as happened in the US in 2001 - the harder it becomes to counter the threat because these independent actors may be harder to identify by national police forces. Scarecrow’s & Lilith’s posts pose real policy questions, as getting rid of one cell does not end the problem, nor kathy1, would capturing Bin Laden end the conflict, IMHO.

It seems to me that the conflict in Chechnya was a “war of liberation” (not unlike one waged in North America some 230-odd years ago) until President Putin found it convenient to cast the violence as being fostered by al-Qaeda.

PantyFanatic, in re truth in times of war: in 1918 Senator Hiram Johnson is supposed to have said: The first casualty when war comes is truth. I have, however, been unable to find where this is recorded. In 1928 Arthur Ponsonby wrote: "When war is declared, truth is the first casualty". (Falsehood in Wartime) Samuel Johnson seems to have again had the first word: “Among the calamities of war may be jointly numbered the diminution of the love of truth, by the falsehoods which interest dictates and credulity encourages.”

As for “war crimes” and “make the punishment fit the crime”, well that is more appropriate for Gilbert and Sullivan ditties than the real world.

__________________
Eudaimonia