I'm glad you've come up with your definition of the Afghanistan problem and have devoted a diary to the woes that afflict Afghanistan. Let me also say that I am with you in recognizing that there's a plethora of problems in Afhanistan and to a certain extent, I follow your premise that military solution is not a solution to a problem where the lives of human beings are at stake. I will go further -- to my mind, there is a chance that a military solution becomes its own stumbling block in the NATO allies' quest for a 'just and lasting peace' in the Afghan nation, not because NATO doesn't have the military might to apply unreasonable force but that NATO itself does not want to do it because NATO or at least most of its members do not believe that an all out military solution is THE ONLY solution.

While I hasten to support most of your views, a re-calibration is in order, and I would like to call your attention to the fact that at no time in my diary, In defence of NATO in Afghanistan  did I ever advance or support the US proposition for a troop increase in Afghanistan as the right thing to do.

In that context, you may take satisfaction that your tactical view that "Pouring in more troops won't work anyway." is generally in line with my own personally. Admittedly, it was something that the diary had chosen not to dwell on, an ommission that perhaps scuttled the more 'humanitarian' aspect of the NATO mission and something that I'd like to focus on here, which is to help the Afghan govt, who had formally asked for the assistance, in establishing stability in the country, or if you like, NATO's role which through ISAF is "to assist the Government of Afghanistan and the international community in maintaining security within its area of operation" and to support "the Government of Afghanistan in expanding its authority throughout the country, and in providing a safe and secure environment conducive to free and fair elections, the spread of the rule of law, and the reconstruction of the country."

Arguably, NATO's mission taken in that light may seem to be in total contradiction to what in reality is: a political-military force that when extended, essentially becomes a tool for war and this is precisely why the current NATO mission, in the words of its Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, ""... is one of the most challenging tasks NATO has ever taken on, but it is a critical contribution to international security..."

While we all deplore, and rightly so, the death toll on the Afghan population and the ravages that caused by a seemingly uncontrolled coalition led by US Enduring Freedom Operation forces, it is imperative that we delineate the true goals of NATO in Afghanistan from the military ambitions of America. It should be seen in the context UN mandate -- and not with a view to subservience to the US -- that's spelled out in NATO's engagement mission that the diary has taken on the defence of NATO in Afghanistan.

By way or reminder, NATO's 3-fold engagement (as stated in is website):

- through leadership of the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), an international force of some 43,250 troops (including National Support Elements) that assists the Afghan authorities in extending and exercising its authority and influence across the country, creating the conditions for stabilisation and reconstruction;

- a Senior Civilian Representative, responsible for advancing the political-military aspects of the Alliance's commitment to the country, who works closely with ISAF, liaises with the Afghan government and other international organisations, and maintains contacts with neighbouring countries.

- a substantial programme of cooperation with Afghanistan, concentrating on defence reform, defence institution-building and the military aspects of security sector reform.

Insofar as the NATO assistance engagement is concerned, I believe NATO has not been remiss in its efforts to enforce the following ISAF tasks:  The conduct of stability and security operations Support to the Afghan National Army (ANA); Support to the Afghan government programmes to Disarm Illegally Armed Groups (DIAG); Support to the Afghan National Police (ANP), within means and capabilities.

Under the influence of NATO, Afghanistan's elected a government which has been having considerable difficulty bringing the disparate factions in the country together is now making every effort to be inclusive (the elected government is talking to the Taliban). True, there is still a long way to go but we cannot pooh pooh NATO's efforts of helping the government in place to reach out to the rest of the Afghan population, Taleban, warlords and ordinary Afghans alike.

We musn't forget too that ISAF provides the security blanket for international NGOs in place, part of ISAF tasks, to ensure that the environment is secure so that infrastructure can be built and the nation can develop and join the international community. The NGOs from all these nations are thus trying their darnest best to continue doing a job amidst the turbulences and the incessant infighting. The NGOs have gained milestones in the education, health and human rights sectors, in setting up the groundwork for a democratic Afghanistan -- one of the biggest accomplishments in that area was Afghanistan election wherein Afghan women participated!

These achievements cannot be belittled -- based on those alone, the fact that NATO's liaising with international NGOs has proved to be an incredibly huge step in the right direction for Afghanistan.

Having said that, I must agree with you and believe that the longer actual PEACE takes to arrive the more difficult providing security becomes. In this context, much depends and will depend on the government in Kabul. And this is perhaps where international pressure should be strongly applied.

I'm in agreement with you that the US has enormous influence over NATO and I don't see that being broken soon, but there must not be any confusion either: NATO IS a multi-nation organization and counts among its members, independent, strong-willed EU nations. Of late, this organization has become capable, effectively, of doing a balancing act that until today they have not done, i.e., providing that razor thin line equilibrium against the United States' general military doctrine of and demands for harsh punitive military actions.

We also cannot waylay the fact its member nations have increasingly become assertive and have started to show teeth: read Germany, and even France; France's token promise of troop support hinges on its own application doctrine in terms of military participation, i.e., "We'll do what we think is best and not because America think it ought to be done their way."

So to your assertion,

"So to this Afghanistan problem, the only solution I see is an orderly NATO withdrawal now, rather than an ignominious retreat later. If the US breaks its NATO toy as a result, too bad.",

it is my belief that it would be the height of cruelty for NATO to leave Afghanistan now because the bottom line is if NATO does that -- quit Afghanistan now and beat the drums of "retreat", there is no guarantee that America, left on its own, will not take an infinitely more violent step to finish off the Afghans.

(With regard to an attack on Saudi Arabia, I'm pretty sure, this is not at all in the NATO cards or at least not in the cards of NATO European nations but you did well to ask although I believe Americans will be in the best position to give you the answer to that.)