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. Subscribe to Intelligence Squared to gain access to our growing archive of Controversies about global politics, ethics, history and the changing face of the modern world.
Copyright 2010 Intelligence Squared | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | User Guidelines