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.
Season tickets are £100 each and include one ticket and a glass of wine for all five debates in our autumn 2010 series
Buy tickets
Buy tickets for 'Don't eat animals' on December 9, featuring Peter Singer, Heather Mills, Paul Levy and Julian Baggini
Buy tickets
See all of the latest IQ² content on one page, including written debates, live debates, and talks from our partners
See what's new
Elizabeth, author of the best-selling Eat, Pray, Love, will talk about her life and writing at this exclusive IQ² event on September 15
Buy ticketsThis week, The Magazine brings you both sides of the story on the legalisation of cocaine, plus debates on philanthrocapitalism and Iran
See the magazine
Copyright 2010 Intelligence 2 Ltd | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | User Guidelines | Goodies