I would like to differ. Your statement regarding the highlighted part isn't entirely valid. It has some validity because the Mujahideen fought the Soviets, but in those days, these mercenaries had the support of 30 NATO countries and United States' full financial, tactical and logistic support. Today this is not the case. The entire world barring a few rogue elements are against the Taliban including the much estranged countries United States, Russia and even China which is considered a rising counter-balance of future against United States. All these three plus European Union and the other two BRIC countries Brazil and India form the world's bulk of political, financial and military might, which stand united against Taliban and other terrorist organizations. Taliban might fight on, but won't last long in today's context.
Taliban might be a tough opponent but they are hiding behind innocent people without any regard for their own people's lives and don't fight head on against even the infantry foot soldiers on ground. If the NATO wanted a total war and destruction, they won't have even bothered sending in foot soldiers to differentiate the innocent from Taliban and just flatten the entire country with some of the most destructive aerial ordinance. But they didn't do that.
The reason why ground troops have been sent is to neutralize targets that are actually rogue and a threat and to avoid civilians as much as possible. The Soviet doctrine wanted to include Afghanistan as a Soviet Socialist Republic and annex the territory while neither the NATO nor the United States has these intentions, contrary to the silly conspiracy theories on this forum.
While Vietnam and Iraq are different case and don't really relate to your context. About your conflict with the Indians, I rest my case.
Niow u call them rogue, these are the same people using the same tectics fighting soviets, than you called them Mujahideens, it seems that u change your tune to suit your self concocted motives.
As per u, soviets wanted to annex Afghan teritory, I cannot help but wonder about your deductions of the war situations be it with soviets and be it now, let me enlighten u, all Nato countries before invading Afghistan showed the picutes of Afghan Women in burqas and promised their freedom from it, as it was in their openion a symble of oppression, Now after 8 years how many burqa clad women have neen saved from that opression, but my question is why do you think that women are oppressed because they wear Burqas, would u be happy if they walked around with mini skirts with thier chests hanging out to be the freedom, and why do you not listen to the women who u want to free from burqas, have u ever talk to some of them, no, u send western women may be some from afghan background living in west to convince Afghan women to rid their burqas. why do your think that what is good for western societies is good for Afghan women. I believe that what is good in west is good for the west and waht is good for these eastern is good feor them, who are we to judge them on our standards.
Now about mercernaries fighting Soviets, do you not think that supporting mercernaries in a country not a member of Nato or another alliance is in itself is against the western doctrine, and how do you believe soviets came to Afghanistan, they were invited by some communist who were Afghans and wanted to take Afghanistan into soviet block, as it is now u want to remove their burqas and want then to think. act and live like western societies. Little you have said and done to preserve their heritage and their beliefs and thier needs. You only want to win the war and want them to live like wesdtern socities, this in itaself is an attempt to change their society to suit your imaginations, not theirs, it should not be winning the war but winning the hearts and minds of people.
About all Nato members, India and Brazil joining in, is done only to please Nato countries as they hold the power on finance, communications and transportation. only few have sent their troops, they are really not in war as long as long as their soldiers are safe, they will suport the war. some of those countries who's soldiers are in Afghanistan are even bribing Talibans for not attacking their soldiers.
Pakistan had stepped in at the time of soviet invations and made huge sacrifices of its resources and Armed forces, after soviets withdrawl Pakistan had to support an entity who would bring peace to Afghanistan's in fighting and to control drug traficking and sefish motives. at that time Talibans were the only Aghan entity that showed signs of some decency of governing the country by rule of Law. and controlling of grug trafficking.
Than came 9/11 and the whole prospect changed, we were told to join or be bombed to stone age, we would have joined the west as we believe in justice and fairness. And all these times, Pakistan is the one who apprehended all those high value targets in U.S. custody till this day, it also caught the culprits who murdered Daniel Pearl. so Pakistani contributions are far beyond any country's contributions.
Canada come in close to Pakistan as it believed that Talibans are harbouring Attackers of 9/11 and joined in to fight. And yet when it comes to doing business India is prefered causing pakistani public openion about Nato countires.
I hope that u will give the credit where it is due as u know that Pakistan and its people have sacrifices more than any other country besides Canada. And should therefore be given all the help they need to put their lives together recognising their sacrifices as not gone waste.
