Clearly the Afghanistan mission is having problems. Afghanistan has never been easy to conquer and pacify.
This article describes what our forces are facing in Afghanistan:
Part of the problem is a recent deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in Northern Pakistan:
Afghan history has been bloody. Alexander the Great moved through the area and allegedly fought a battle near what is now Kandahar. Genghis Khan's invasion and subjugation of the area in the early 1200s marked the last time Afghanistan was conquered.
Czarist Russia and Britain vied for control of Afghanistan throughout the 19th century because its strategic location made it a key to the control of India. Both suffered defeats.
The British occupied Kabul in 1838, but worsening resistance led them to quit in January 1842. Given a pledge of safe passage, the British commander led about 700 Britons -- soldiers, wives and children -- 3,800 Indian troops, and more than 12,000 camp followers from the city. The trek through a snow-covered mountain pass to safety would become a 90-mile death march. Only one man emerged alive.
In the 20th century, Afghanistan humbled the Soviet Union. Seeking to prop up their communist satellite in the country, the Soviets invaded in 1979. In a 10-year effort, hundreds of thousands died. The United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others supplied and trained the anti- Soviet mujahidin forces. In 1989, the Soviets were forced to leave...
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/n09192001_200109193.html
This article describes what our forces are facing in Afghanistan:
Oct 25, 2006
Gross stupidity in Afghanistan
By Ajai Sahni
The US-led coalition is unambiguously losing the war in Afghanistan, and it is important, at this stage, to reiterate the obvious, that is, precisely why the war was undertaken in the first instance: because of September 11, 2001, because of the al-Qaeda presence in Afghanistan, and because of the assessment that the Taliban regime there had provided safe haven and operational facilitation to al-Qaeda for its planning and execution of the multiple and catastrophic strikes in the United States. The war was not merely punitive, it was intended to be preventive. It has proved a failure on both counts.
As with all the pertinent leaderships confronted with the possibility, if not imminence, of defeat, saving face has become infinitely more important than the original objectives of this war. It is useful to emphasize here that this was not a war of conquest, or even of "liberation" (despite the rhetoric of "Enduring Freedom"), but of defense. Its principal objective was to deny a base for future September 11s to be strategized, planned and executed.
But the Taliban and al-Qaeda have survived - albeit somewhat damaged - and, if current trends persist, will soon have the freedom, the power and the required setting to plan out their next wave of attacks against the West. And Western - particularly US - leaderships are squarely to blame for this. US diplomat Alberto Fernandez has spoken scathingly of the "stupidity in Iraq", but the stupidity in Afghanistan is far more manifest, and was considerably the more avoidable.
Warning of the dangers of defeat, Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, the United Kingdom's former chief of the defense staff, noted, "I think we've lost the ability to think strategically." General David Richards, a British officer commanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops in Afghanistan, noted the "upsurge of violence along the eastern border with Pakistan" and warned that the situation was approaching a tipping point where a majority of Afghans would switch their allegiance to the resurgent Taliban if there were no visible improvements over the coming six months.
The outgoing British commander, Brigadier Ed Butler, described Taliban operations in Afghanistan as "more ferocious than anything in Iraq", and reports suggest that the Taliban were operating in battalion-sized units of 400 men, equipped with "excellent weapons and field equipment"...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HJ25Df01.html
Part of the problem is a recent deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban tribal leaders in Northern Pakistan:
Taliban attacks double after Pakistan's deal with militants
Afghan offensives add weight to safe haven fear Relations between Karzai and Musharraf hit new low
Declan Walsh in Kabul
Friday September 29, 2006
The Guardian
Taliban attacks along Afghanistan's southeastern border have more than doubled in the three weeks since a controversial deal between Pakistan and pro-Taliban militants, the US military said yesterday.
Pakistan's military ruler, Pervez Musharraf, had promised the agreement with militants in North Waziristan would help to bring peace to Afghanistan. But early indications suggest the pact is having the opposite effect, creating a safe haven for the Taliban to regroup and launch fresh cross-border offensives against western and Afghan troops.
A US military spokesman, Colonel John Paradis, said US soldiers had reported a "twofold, in some cases threefold" increase in attacks along the border since the deal was signed on September 5,...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1883737,00.html