Either this is yet another one of this administration's insane unintended consequences, or -with never, ever enough boots on the ground to finish the job - perhaps it was just as intended as was the "control" of the "Golden Triangle" in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War. - M. R.

Our occupation of Afghanistan never, ever had enough boots on the ground to make it successful.

So what is the result?

The grinding down of US and NATO troops and material, with no end in sight.

Our options here are limited.

Engaging and absorbing the Taliban faction into civil discourse and the political process is the only logical thing to do.

Unfortunately, logic and this administration have never had a good, on-going relationship when it comes to either foreign or domestic policy. - M. R.

That's why the US invaded in the first place.

What the US and NATO commanders seem to have forgotten completely, in all the "planning" which was done, was that the last military leader to conquer and hold it was Alexander the Great.. - M. R.

It is completely obvious that neither the US nor NATO will never, ever have enough troops on the ground to quell the violence and anger of Afghanis who simply want their country back.

Let us hope that the US and NATO are not so stupid as to not give this at least a fighting chance.

Of course, given the US's track record under this administration, logic and intelligence have never been its hallmarks. - M. R.

So what next, a draft?? - M. R.

At the moment, the US military is literally recruiting gang members off the streets of urban areas to keep the enlistment numbers up.

And if you don't think a draft could happen in the US, think again.

Draft boards are already in place, and the legislation authorizing a draft is ready to be introduced when congress thinks the time is right. - M. R.

The draft boards are all in place, with mechanisms to begin the process quickly.

And this time, Uncle Sam isn't just coming for your sons: he will be coming for your daughters also.

One of these pieces of proposed legislation is written in such a way that it prevents kids from attending college until they have completed their "national service" requirement. - M. R.

Please don't tell me that this is what "progress" is looking like in Afghanistan right now. - M. R.

There were never, ever enough boots on the ground to do the job, which meant more and more reliance on air power.

Air power can take out a few of the alleged bad guys, but most often seems to destroy the lives of non-combatants, women, children, the elderly, and the medically infirm.

This, in turn, radicalizes the local population more and more in favor of the Taliban.

NATO has only three options here, and the most logical one is the one they don't want to do. They can engage the Taliban with dialogue, and bring them into the political process. They can somehow get enough boots on the ground (doubtful, in light of NATO's European members to want to expand their troop commitments), or they can leave.

There are no other options, period, end of discussion. - M. R.

You cannot, absolutely, win what is essentially a ground war from the air.

You can, however, enrage the civilian population with multitudes of non-combatant deaths, causing them to side with the Taliban. And if, "According to the U.S.'s counterinsurgency doctrine, Afghanistan would require 400,000 troops to pacify, although the country's history suggests that even that number is probably wildly optimistic," what the hell are we doing here? - M. R.

And we're how many years into this war, 6 Now? - M. R.

And of course, the people who are really making a killing (literally) are the folks at the top of various distribution chains.

The US/NATO occupation has flattened much of what was left of the Afghani infrastructure, and killed many innocent Afghanis.

But wow, the invasion/occupation has been the best thing since sliced bread for the drug trade! - M. R.

We are going to see a "coalition of the willing" morph into the "coalition of the non-existent", and the US may well be left alone here. - M. R.

The Taliban simply made a tactical retreat in 2001.

Now, they are back, stronger than ever. - M. R.

What we are seeing now in Afghanistan is the beginning of a complete meltdown

The US, bogged down both here and in Iraq, doesn't have more troops to send.

Meanwhile, other NATO countries have governments which do, occasionally, listen to their people when they say that they don't want their countrymen and women fighting, getting maimed and dying in what is essentially the US's war. - M. R.

In Afghanistan, we have precisely the same hubris in terms of a catastrophic lack of honest military planning.

Without those 400,000 troops, this military misadventure was doomed from the beginning. - M. R.

You cannot win what is essentially a ground war from the air.

Other NATO countries refuse to allow their fighters to go into the southern part of Afghanistan.

So, what are the options?

Declare "victory" and go home?

Bomb the entire country to smithereens, declare "victory" and go home?

Include the people you're fighting against into the political dialogue and create some kind of fabric of agreement about what the future government will really look like?

Send in mercenaries, courtesy of DYNCORP and BLACKWATER, because there are no more actual troops available and ready?

The most logical option would be a political dialogue, which is why it will be completely ignored by NATO (and particularly US) leaders.

Unfortunately, the most likely outcome will be either bombing the country into oblivion, declaring victory, and leaving, or the introduction of mercenaries, who answer to no one, to hold off the Taliban.

Those who presented us with with the war scenario, and told the world how "easy" this campaign, and subsequent victory would be here, had absolutely no grasp of either this area's history, nor the people with whom they would be dealing.

And that is hubris of the highest order. - M. R.

The other NATO countries will not provide more troops than they already have (except for a small symbolic number) because they can't.

Unfortunately for the US and the UK, other NATO members are part of governments which still believe that listening to the will of the people is critical, because not doing it will mean a major opposition win in the next election.

So, Secretaries Rice and Miliband, here are your options.

You can involve the Taliban into the political process.

You can bomb the smithereens out of the country, declare victory, and go home.

Or, you can count on private mercenary providers (like DYNCORP and BLACKWATER) to supply the troop strength you need.

After all, as has been clearly demonstrated, they are accountable to no one except their corporate masters.

Not a pretty group of scenarios, is it?

But the fact the NATO planners didn't see this coming kind of makes you wonder about the degree of hubris which prevented NATO and US military to understand that they never, ever had enough boots on the ground to begin with to accomplish their mission. - M. R.

Who is really profiting from the sale of these poppy plants? - M. R.

Will the Pentagon and White House again be tapping companies like BLACKWATER and DYNCOR for yet more mercenaries, who are accountable to no one? - M. R.

Other NATO member heads understand that the images of body bags, coffins, and horrendously wounded soldiers are not good for their country's or party's image, come the next election cycle (the media in the US generally ignores or suppresses these images for US consumption).

There are only a couple of possibilities Gates has, and time is running short for any of them to actually work.

Congress could pass a draft/national service act, but they dare not, because it is an election year in the US.

The US, NATO, and Karzai's government could actually include the Taliban in the political process, instead of trying to kill them. This is precisely the most sane, logical, and effective road to take, which is why it will be a non-starter.

The US could hire more mercenaries from DYNCOR and BLACKWATER to do the job. After all, they're accountable to no one in terms of the slaughter and carnage they cause.

We could bomb the crap out of the country, declare victory, and walk away.

None of these possibilities are palatable, but the only other option is simply walking away, and let Afghanistan deal with the world on its own, after we have destroyed its infrastructure.

But the phenomenal hubris of this administration won't let that happen. - M. R.

It was there that the US should have learned (we had hoped) that it is futile to attempt to win a land war from the air.

We have never had enough boots on the ground to make a military victory happen here, and the Taliban retreat, early in the process of the US led invasion and occupation, was merely tactical.

So short of bombing the country into complete collapse and declaring "victory", what do we do?

Here's a novel concept: start a dialogue with the Taliban, rather than excluding and killing them.

Remember, they were our friends when we were trying to get the old Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, right?

Under the Taliban's watch, Afghanistan got nearly rid of its opium production.

So, Secretary Rice, here are your three options at this point: force NATO member countries to send thousands upon thousands more troops (a highly unlikely bet at this moment), bomb the crap out of the entire country, walk away and declare victory, or talk with the people you're currently bombing.

There's really nothing else left. - M. R.

Take a bow, folks, for unfathomable ignorance of this country and its culture, and for imposing a guy so crooked as its president, that he makes that Taliban look good to the Afghani people!

Way to go! - M. R.

So what now? - M. R.

One has to wonder just how involved with operations inside Pakistan these thousand troops just might become. - M. R.

Negotiation, and inclusion of the Taleban, ultimately, in the political process, is what is needed.

Of course, this would be logical, so no one in Washington or Kabul is seriously thinking about doing it. - M. R.

Are their goods going to market, undisturbed?

Whoever controls the poppies controls the profits: this is what it's all about.

And remember; when the Taliban were in charge of Afghanistan, they shut down poppy business completely, lopping off the heads of those who refused to cooperate. - M. R.

NATO and US military commands should have learned that lesson from Viet Nam, but apparently haven't, and appear to be stunned that what they have continued to do is not working. - M. R.

Given the added instability with Pakistan erupting after the assassination of Bhutto, the entire region could explode in an uprising that would be literally uncontainable.

Yes, we can continue to bomb from the air.

But you can't win a land war from the air, as one might hope that the US learned from Viet Nam.

Unfortunately, it appears that policy makers in Washington seem to suffer from "selective memory repression" when it comes to actually learning the lessons of history. - M. R.

Unless somehow NATO and Pakistan are able to martial more troops immediately to this area, things could get really dicey here. - M. R.

The last person to actually ride herd on this region successfully was Alexander the Great.

Ultimately, the solution has to be political, not military.

Unfortunately, the US's "Man in Afghanistan", Karzai, has surrounded himself with cronies so crooked that they have to screw their socks on in the morning, and the Afghani people are feeling betrayed on all sides.

And that statement in this article about the need to "...halt the rising opium production and trafficking" is a real laugh.

The Taliban that we kicked out of Afghanistan had the problem under complete control

If the taxpayers in those countries funding this occupation really knew who was benefiting from this drug production, they would be very shocked indeed. - M. R.

What is needed here is not a military "solution" (which NATO has done a brilliant job of mucking up to date, simply adding more misery and death in the lives of ordinary Afghanis), but a political one. - M. R.

"The reinforcements would be used to fight the Taliban, which US officials concede is now defending its territory more effectively against allied and Afghan forces."

The NATO countries are refusing to send their troops into the more violent southern part of Afghanistan, so it's primarily US troops which are taking the brunt of of these attacks.

As with Iraq, we have never had anywhere close to the real number of "boots on the ground" to accomplish our original mission.

Worst of all, the Karzai government's corruption is making the Taliban look like the good guys to the Afghani people.

And if, in fact, Afghanistan is in a state this author characterizes as a "security retrogression" (i.e., we're getting our ass kicked), every honest political candidate, from every party, should be yelling about it at the top of their lungs to their constituency. - M. R.

The Taliban is in control of over 50% of the country.

If the brain-dead in Washington are describing this situation as "limited progress", how the devil would they describe "abject, complete failure"? - M. R.

Neighboring states include Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Iran.The question has to be asked, which of Afghanistan's neighbors would be really happy to see a stepped up US presence in their country?

And the honest answer has to be, not very many, if any, at the moment. - M. R.