Afghanistan is a mess. In the absence of western intervention it is likely to produce what, by our ideas, is a pretty nasty government.

On the other hand each successive foreign intervention has only made things worse. At the end of the day it is for Afghans to say how Afghanistan is governed. Maybe if they are given the chance they will be able to gradually get back to the comparative peace and prosperity which existed under the regime of King Zahir Shah, before the Soviet invasion.

Bluntly it is not worth the death of a single western soldier, to try to prop up a weak government in Kabul.

I also see (from Daily Koss) that Senator Frist (Republican-Tennessee) has been suggesting negotiations to bring parts of the Taliban into the Afghan government. It might work. It is a more constructive suggestion than is usually made by US Republican politicians, so no doubt Frist will be severely punished for his apostasy.

NATO had only one goal : kind of intimidation of the soviet union.

since NATO is irrelevant, i do not see lot of motivation ,at least from Europeans (i do not speak of the poodle) to really continue this organization that is barely more than a cache-sex neither motivation to cancel it.
It looks like this organization will be dissolved by itself sooner or later.

my guess : Nato will be officially dissolved in the moved that will follow the cut&Run from Afghanistan and Iraq and replaced by a lose European-only entity.

I don't think the situation is quite as simple as laid out here, although I do agree with the dire forecasts.  There are issues of factionalism and foreign governmental and religious meddling (primarily from Pakistan) that continue to work against a unity government in Afghanistan, just as they did in the Soviet and Taliban days. It's not simply a matter of the presence of Western troops and Afghan xenophobia.  The reality is that different factions have had their way in "Afghanistan" for so long that is will not be easy to form a strong central government.  Add to that, the unchecked cross border support and safe havens run by fundamentalist religious groups and we arrive at our current situation. Remember, there were no foreign troops in Afghanistan when the Taliban ran rough shod over human rights, made it's bid to take over the entire country, and created a haven for UBL/AQ. I don't know if Afghanistan will be NATO's last stand; it very well could be. I would give an offer to include the Taliban in the central government little chance to succeed for long. It is not in the nature of the religious fundamentalists to accept half-way measures except as a means to gain a stronger foothold from which they could regain their former dominance. In order for NATO to achieve it's goals in Afghanistan, Pakistan must be forced to end the support that begins there (not a likely event).  Every Afghan refugee I've ever spoken with here in the US has stated that Pakistan is the primary concern. Only if Pakistan stops meddling will the Afghan's themselves have a chance to unite their country again. I would say, however, that the ultimate outcome, though acceptable in many ways, may not be anything like a Western style democracy.

won't wonders never cease? _ Snuffy Smith

Sen. Bill Brist, the Republican Majority Leader, said that "the Afghan guerrilla war can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Taliban and their supporters into the Afghan government."  - source: Associated Press, Oct. 2, 2006.

Frist's comments are astonishing, since he is one of the loudest voices for "staying the course" in Iraq.  I can only conclude that he has given up on any chance of a stable, democratic government in Afghanistan.

Also, the Taliban and its local allies have staged a couple of sucessful infrastructure attacks in Pakistan (a natural gas pipeline, and a hydro-electric dam), that forced the Pakistani government to grant them autonomy in the western provinces.

I wouldn't bury NATO so quickly.

The day NATO cuts & runs from Afghanistan, you will hear the mainstream media saying "NATO did its best, blabla, but what could it possibly do against warlords and taliban?". And soon enough we'll be brainwashed with feeds on how heroic NATO soldiers have been, fighting in an Alamo of sorts, knowing that their mission was doomed but staying the course. Brave NATO. Wonderful NATO. etc etc. So this will deal with the public.

As for countries themselves, well they are so used to functioning within NATO (as there is no other equivalent, NATO remains a great medium for European nations to spy on each other). that I doubt they're ready to turn the page yet.

So I would speculate that NATO cuts & run, Afghanistan goes to hell or leaves it, and NATO continues to exist for another 20 years, 30 years tops.

half of whose family run businesses in the US as your puppet leader was definitley not a good idea. Mind you he spoke good English. Some say better than he speaks the language of his "own" country assuming that he is not actually a US citiizen. Then having him win an election by allowing his supporters who had been bought by promises of US aid to vote 7 or 8 times garnering him a bare majority only compounded things. Then to face the reality that you have saddled yourself with a leader who has absolutely no local backing, no local support, and was only in power because of your money and troops, and because he allowed the warloads to produce copious amounts of opium was probably a bit disturbing to those countries involved as the resistance to foreign involvement increased. Still we wouldnt want reality interfering with NATOs little dreams.