Long ago now, with Kabul quickly captured and the Taliban forced to retreat, the US-led invasion of Afghanistan was considered a success. But bringing security to this vast, mountainous country has so far proved impossible. With Osama Bin Laden still at large, and the Taliban resurgent, Nato soldiers and Afghan civilians are still dying in large numbers. As he faces calls to send more and more troops to the country, critics of the war now say that this war will be President Obama’s Vietnam.
Pointing to historic failures to conquer Afghanistan – Britain in the 19th century, Russia in the 20th – they say that a mixture of tribal politics, unstable government, and lack of resources renders any chance of coalition victory impossible. Is it necessary to defeat the Taliban to stabilise Afghanistan? Does victory require a redefinition of the meaning of success?
This is a free Controversy open to everybody. Become a premium member to gain access to our growing archive of written debates about global politics, ethics, history and the changing face of the modern world.
“What hope for the economy?”, featuring Anatole Kaletsky and Gideon Rachman, chaired by Evan Davis, 7th Feb 2012
Buy tickets
"The best chance for peace between Israel and Palestine is for Uncle Sam to butt out”, featuring William Sieghart, 27th Feb 2012
Buy tickets
Rising star historian Faramerz Dabhoiwala on the origins of sex and how the permissive society arrived in Western Europe, 15th Feb
Buy tickets
Copyright 2011 Intelligence 2 Ltd | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | User Guidelines | Goodies | FAQs