The reason it's a bag of spanners is, I'm afraid, down to the politicians (of all hues and nationalities) being largely incompetent and more interested in power games and politics rather than endstates. There, said it.
The military was sent in to defeat AQ and the Taleban. Tick VG for the first, a sort of tick for the second. However, Afghanistan is the perfect example of what happens when politics interferes with military operations. You can have a military success on the battlefield but overall campaign failure because your campaign is so complex and interlinked with other factors that the military is but one small part.
A failure to deploy the military with a defined endstate and a left / right of arc and a full set of rules and political guidance and direction, then relying on the miltary judgement of the commanders to achieve that end state has led us to where we are now. Constant low level fighting with the odd spike of horrific and needless violence, but without moving further forwad. Unless the politicians can sort something out, frankly this situation could go on for years without resolution. For over a decade the various militaries have performed admirably in Afghanistan, but the politicians' performance has sadly not been quite as successful and that is where we now need to be concentrating and asking serious questions.
Last edited by Melchett01; 22nd September 2012 at 12:18.