The video makes a graphic and compelling case that Afghan women have suffered during the past eight years. Claims that they suffered less under Taliban rule may reflect the opinion of those who offer them, but others would surely disagree. Few of us here are qualified to judge.

Elsewhere, I've explained my view that our very recent policy decisions in Afghanistan are a vitally necessary step, including the increase in troop strength, but also the decision to avoid airstrikes of the kind that inflicted so many civilian casualties during much of interval covered by the video. In that sense, I would hope readers will distinguish the reality of suffering that is depicted, which is incontrovertible, from the claim that the best course is to end the war right away, which is probably a very bad idea, at least in the view of most foreign policy analysts with a global perspective. The goals of the U.S./NATO policy are not to eliminate the insurgency, which would be impossible, but to prevent it from regaining domination over large regions of the country. If that happened, insurgent strength would spill into Pakistan, where the military have recently succeeded in driving back Taliban/Al Qaeda forces, and where our effort to prevent them from finding easy sanctuary in Afghanistan is crucial to the welfare of both nations. It is also critical in preventing a destabilization of Pakistan by insurgent elements, with potential access to Pakistan's nuclear weapons. The threat of even greater suffering than already experienced, on a global scale, if those efforts fail, is not something to be dismissed. Even partial succss (i.e., maintenance of a reasonable degree of stability with occasional upticks in violence) will be better than an unrestrained insurgency.

I have also suggested previously that our current policies must be monitored frequently to adapt to circumstances. Indeed, a downscaling of American/NATO involvement earlier than projected would be welcomed by everyone, but that will depend on how the military effort proceeds.

If Afghans want foreign military presence in their country to end, so do the other nations involved - hence vigorous efforts are under way to train and equip Afghan forces to maintain national stability. This will take however long it takes, and given the alternatives, we will have to wait it out, with an expectation that at least some outside presence may be needed for years, but a major combat presence should not be needed for more than a few. Iraq is a recent example of how a transition from an inept policy of many years to one better able to transfer security to indigenous forces could make a significant different in enhancing both security and our ability to leave the country. We do not expect to be trapped in Iraq for centuries, and it would be premature to make that dire prediction for Afghanistan, as though our goals were the same as those of would-be conquerors from past eras. The critical difference from the past is the intention to transfer authority to Afghans rather than retain it for outsiders.

In the same vein, there is general agreement that the current campaign should be aimed at holding territory and rendering it safe for civilians, rather than killing or capturing insurgents. The commanders on the ground have made it clear that the less often they fire weapons, the more successful they will be. No effort of this magnitude is likely to be free of missteps, but the change in orientation is refreshing, and an occasion for at least tentative optimism.

Finally, geopolitics aside, every effort must be made to pressure the Afghan government to relieve the oppression of women. There should be no disagreement about the desirability of that outcome.

This information is very useful! Thanks!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of microsoft hyper v, iscsi specification