Most people really don't know what the Taliban really is. There are some bad dudes that are members of the Taliban, for sure. But they were and pretty much continue to be the government of Afghanistan since the mid-1990's. Oh, there's a "democratically elected" and notoriously corrupt "government" that supposedly governs the city of Kabul. But the rest of Afghanistan is still governed by the Taliban, or in a few places by local warlords. The Taliban is supported and tolerated by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, both supposedly our allies.

A large part of Afghanistan is comprised of the Pashtun tribe and is almost entirely Sunni Muslim and considers it's governance to be Sharia law. If that's not what the Afghans want, they are at least willing to accept that form of "government", notwithstanding all its shortcomings (anti modernism, anti-education, anti-women, religious fundamentalism, and on and on). If there is a majority of Afgahns or Muslims who don't like what's going on, they sure aren't willing to get involved to stop it.

It's been said by many that no foreign power can change Afghanistan thru military power. The solution must be a political one, they say. It seems that the U.S. has decided to pour money into Afghanistan in the form of development of schools, roads, utilities, etc. in an effort to convince the Afghans that there's a better form of government than the Taliban. Of course, we're getting young Americans killed by putting them in harm's way to "secure" parts of the country before we begin pouring in development money. We're pretty much doing it alone because there isn't an Afghan army, even in a nacent form, to begin to take control of their country. Most experts think that the chance of success of our strategy is remote. As SteveZ suggests, not much is going to happen until the "silent Muslim majority" begins to activate. And there's no evidence of that whatsoever.

Most experts are thinking that the Taliban has to be a part of the solution in Afghanistan, and is probably not a problem that can be eliminated.

I pretty much shared an opinion stated by Tom Freidman in Sunday's New York Times. Writing his most recent column in Afghanistan he said (regarding U.S. involvement in Afghanistan), "Why are we here? Who cares about the Taliban? Al Qaeda is gone. And if its leaders come back, well, that’s why God created cruise missiles."

Friedman went on to soften his opinion about simply leaving the country to the governance of the Taliban after visiting an elementary school somewhere in the Afghan countryside. He softened after observing the promise of a young generation of Afghan children who clearly want to learn.

I'm not sure. Not having the same personal epiphany that Freidman experienced, I'm still left with the feeling that we can't accomplish our objectives in Afghanistan, so why do we continue to sacrifice lives and treasure to try? Surely, if we continue our "Afghanistan strategy" we'll be there for decades--and we still might not wind up with we are hoping for.

Is staying there worth it? Or, as Friedman felt before he visited the Afghanistan school, is the question still valid...why are we there? If things heat up in a way we don't like, that's why God created cruise missles.