The continued presence of American and NATO forces benefits the Taliban and Al Qaeda  The on-going NATO mission means continued combat confrontations and an ever-increasing risk to the civilian population of Afghanistan. These sorts of deaths, injuries and destruction of property have so far been demonstrably destructive to the U.S.-led international effort to stabilize Afghanistan and defeat the violent insurgency being waged by the Taliban and other militant groups. [1]  According to a report released last January by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Afghanistan, the 2,118 civilians killed in 2008 was an increase of 40% over 2007. [2]  The continued presence of American troops into ethnic Pashtun areas in the Afghan south only galvanizes local people to back the Taliban in repelling the infidels. [3]  A 2009 study by the Carnegie Endowment concluded that "the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency's momentum is to start withdrawing troops. The presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgence of the Taliban." [4]  What the timetable for withdrawal acknowledges is that there is no state-building military solution in Afghanistan. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Mohammad-Mahdi Akhondzadeh said in April of 2009, "The presence of foreign forces has not improved things in the country". [5]  The long-term security interests of the US and NATO would be better served by a military operation centred around targeted strikes against terrorist training camps from offshore or out-of-country special forces or drones, as this removes the aggravating presence of troops on the ground and would lead to fewer civilian casualties. [6]  Looking beyond to the wider world, the NATO mission in Afghanistan has inflamed global Muslim anger and terrorism since its inception, and will continue to do so until it ends. This makes it more difficult for Western and Middle Eastern countries to work together toward mutual objectives, such as peace between Israel and Palestine, a conflict which drives support for terrorism worldwide and helps Al Qaeda recruit. [7]  Al Qaeda has realized all this and aims to drain US resources in Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden made the following statement in 2004: "All we have to do is send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the [U.S.] generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses ... so we are continuing this policy of bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." [8]  Keeping troops in Afghanistan past the withdrawal date would just play into Al Qaeda's plan to trap the US. Therefore the withdrawal date should be adhered to and NATO troops withdrawn from Afghanistan.  [1] Gharib, Ali. "Inevitable: Obama's Surge in Afghanistan Will Bring a Surge in Civilian Deaths". IPS News. 18 February 2009.   [2] Fenton, Anthony. "Afghanistan: A Surge Toward Disaster". Asia Times Online. 18 March 2009.   [3] Kristof, Nicholas. "The Afghanistan Abyss". The New York Times. 5 September 2009.   [4] Dorronsoro, Gilles. ‘Focus and Exit: An Alternative Strategy for the Afghan War’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, January 2009.   [5] Tehran Times. "Iran says Afghan troop surge will be unhelpful". Tehran Times. 4 April 2009.   [6] Los Angeles Times. "U.S. considers sending special ops to Afghanistan". Los Angeles Times.26 October 2008.   [7] Friends Committee on National Legislation. "FCNL to Obama: No More Troops to Afghanistan! Invest in Diplomacy &amp; Development". Friends Committee on National Legislation.23 February 2009.   [8] Ignatius, David. "Road Map for Afghanistan". RealClearPolitics. 19 March 2009.