US and allied forces should retreat from Afghanistan immediately.

I must begin my defence of the continued occupation of Afghanistan with an immediate condemnation of Neo-Conservatism; I am a Liberal and I know it is difficult to defend such a position, though considerably easier than defending the conflict in Iraq. I am not in support of Bush/Cheney's inability to manage their foreign policy effectively. i.e.. rebuilding the country with a new superior infrastructure, utilities and governance. They have failed, the right has failed. It is clear that the war has not gone particularly well; slow progress and high casualties are not an enchanting image nor do they add weight to my argument. Yet it is surely honourable from a liberal perspective to see that it is the most right-wing, the most reactionary and indeed, the most repulsive (sticking with the letter 'r') groups in Afghanistan whom would like nothing more than to see the back of the Allied troops. Not for this silly Neo-Con idea that they will 'follow us home', such an idea is ridiculous, but instead of that unfounded idea that they would turn their evil outwards rather one would see the return of a nefarious inward looking control by any number of rival or co-operative terrorist or insurgent groups. Is it desirable to once again have the civilians living in a state of terror from their own government? To have women back at the lowest rung of society having being elevated from it by the intervention? I would say not. To address the points in order: To fight Terrorism I agree that it is the police whom defend the people of the West from those who wish nothing but destruction. Yet it is very difficult for a rag-tag organisation such as Al-Quad to mount an offensive when it's bases are under constant pressure, when they have to continually relocate and when their primary source of income the poppy crop is no longer their monolopy. I would actually argue it is the role of NATO to defend the population; we are all people and just because through pure chance one has been born in affluence and one into the wilderness does that mean the latter should be forsaken due to cost? Though there is hypocrisy in foreign policy, which is regrettable I would argue, subjectively, that it is ok to say one idea is better than another. What we have in the West is not perfect but it is far better than that in the Middle East and Afghanistan; should we let gay people marry? Vs should we use the blowtorch or just stone them to death... Defeating an idea is possible it is a fallacy of anti-war campaigner and activists to claim otherwise. The Soviet Union and revolutionary communism seems to have died. (ignoring Obama) The resources don't belong to the U.S but they don't belong to controlling bullies and murderers who exploit the populace in a Feudal style of leadership; denying them their basic economic rights. This is a failing of the Neo-Cons not the premise of the war. It is unwise to rely on Warlords for they have no laws nor code to follow, if they behave immorally then there is no-one to hold them to account without the presence of a peace-keeping force. It is reasonable to reach out to the progressives of the Middle-East and the intellectuals and allow them to have a chance to run a democracy and set up their state; a Constitution was drafted back in 2004. Rather returning the keys of power to those govern with graft, torture, imbalance and a vile indifference towards civil liberties and rights. Then strive to revert the policies of a race-based Taliban to a fairness based democratic system. President Karzai may be corrupt, or alleged to be, but has promised to do away with this and even if it is an empty promise one should surely feel it is preferable for a leader of Afghanistan to promise to deal with problems rather than telling people to either shut up or be beaten and killed. https://www.cia.gov... http://news.bbc.co.uk...