From Christopher Hitchen's piece about opium war in Afghanistan over at Slate, posted October 6:

I used to know Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Her Majesty's ambassador in Kabul, and I have no reason to doubt that he was quoted correctly in the leaked cable from the deputy French ambassador to Afghanistan that has since appeared in the Parisian press. I think that he is right in saying that while there cannot be a straightforward "military victory" for the Taliban and other fundamentalist and criminal forces, nonetheless there is a chance that a combination of these forces can make the country ungovernable by the NATO alliance. He may also be correct in his assertion that an increase of troops in the country might have unwelcome and unintended consequences, in that "it would identify us even more strongly as an occupation force and would multiply the targets" for the enemy.

Given the history of Afghanistan, to think that it can be "governed" by NATO or anyone else but Afghans is absurd.

"we won in 2005. I should know. I was a POW and everything."

John Mcinsane

"The trends across the board are not going in the right direction," the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, told reporters. "And I would anticipate next year would be a tougher year."

Admiral Mullen said Afghanistan was likely to continue what a new intelligence assessment calls "a downward spiral" barring rapid, major improvements to curb Afghanistan's booming heroin trade, bolster district and tribal leaders to offset a weak central government in Kabul, breathe life into a flagging economy, and stem the flow of militants who are carrying out increasingly sophisticated attacks from safe havens in Pakistan.

But, whatever we do, we mustn't upset our dear, sweet friends the pakistanis.

Right Johnnyboy?