That is far from being an offensive weapon for us to use, I did search this as well today and every single article I read pointed more to the member countries sending or agreeing to send troops on a peace keeping mission, not an offensive nature. Especially not the offensive nature we would like. I personally dont' blame them, we have more than enough man power 'if' we didn't drop the ball and move into Iraq, a nation that had nothing to do with us being attacked. NATO was also designed for countries attacking members, not simply a small rogue terrorist force who had some support from a country.
Afghanistan is a long haul. The taliban are able to recruit and fund themselves in Pakistan's tribal areas. A couple of million dollars could put 5000 insurgents in the field. Once the are killed or captured the process can be repeated.
They aren't insurgents Bogart. ITS THEIR COUNTRY NOT OURS! And the Taliban don't need money to field people. Nearly all men of age, are likely already members. You have to remember that the Taliban are not Al Queda.
Afganistan does not belong to the Pakistani Taliban http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/05/pakistani_taliban_co_1.php
There was an interesting quote by a so called terrorist sympathizer who lives in australia. [Actually i made it up ] "If we fight for our nation it is patriotism. When others fight for their country, it is terrorism"
The people in NWFP don't see themselves as Pakistanis more than Afghans. They are simply, Pahtans. People who speak Pashto. The geographical border between Pakistan and Afghanistan is meaningless to them. They were there before Pakistan was a country, and they will be there after Pakistan is no longer a country.
U.S. and Iraq scale back security deal plans. The two sides had been negotiating a Status of Forces Agreement that would provide a legal basis for U.S. troops to remain when a U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.