Numerous people wonder as to how an invasion of Afghanistan led to an occupation. The first article I reviewed was an opinion piece by the British newspaper Telegraph. The author does not spend anytime beating around the bush. The author presents key questions to engage the reader and allow them to form their own opinions on the issue as to why we are still occupying Afghanistan. The article talks about the transformation of the war in Afghanistan from a “multi-national anti-terrorist mission taking on the character of an Anglo-American occupation,” but presents evidence that an immediate withdrawal would have negative effect to the security of British citizens. Rather than having other countries solves Afghanistan’s problems the author recommends that the Kabul regime receive adequate training and supply “to the point where it can take over from the foreign forces. Then, job done, we should get out.”

The second article, which I reviewed, came from a local northern California newspaper NewsBlaze. The article is based on a message made by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to NATO leaders after an April 3, 2008 meeting that the “United Nations will not leave Afghanistan as long as its presence is needed by the Afghan people.” Contrary to the sentiment of bringing home troops, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stresses that pulling out too early will cost more, concerning stability of the nation, than direct engagement. Rather than pullout troops author Jacquelyn S. Porth reports that France and America will increase the number of troops occupying Afghanistan and that Canada commits to keep the current level of troops deployed. Ban also pushes that “insurgency has achieved some gains due to weak results from international assistance and of the shortfalls of Afghan governance.”

The occupation of Afghanistan has lasted over six years. The main objective was to remove Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden and his regime from power. The tangent mission to restore the infrastructure of Afghanistan was established shortly after.

NATO seems to be stating that now they have a clear mission as to what they are doing in Afghanistan and why, which is baffling because many people have been under the rouse that restoring Afghanistan’s infrastructure and aiding them in creating a self-sustaining government was the initial mission. It seems that there are valid reasons for a short to medium stay in Afghanistan but that the actual evidence as to why is just emerging.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/04/07/dl0702.xml

http://newsblaze.com/story/20080405080503tsop.nb/newsblaze/TOPSTORY/Top-Stories.html