The total strength of ISAF in Afghanistan exceeds that of any foreign military force ever before stationed in that

country. It has completed ten years and three months, which is the longest in Asian nations history. It is also the longest armed conflict in Afghanistan and the US history. The Taliban proving to be tough opponents have blocked the ambitions of imperialist powers and forced them to seek peace and withdraw. The US has decided to pull out by end 2014 but desires to leave behind 30,000 troops in four military bases for another ten years because it has failed to achieve any of the stated or concealed objectives in Afghanistan and in other regional countries. 10,000 US troops have pulled out and another consignment of 23000 troops would depart this summer. Rest of US troops as well as of NATO countries are desperate to return home much before 2014. They prefer use of unmanned drones over physical combat. WellIndia and Pakistan also share an interest in limiting the rise of the Afghan Taliban, albeit for different reasons. India is wary of increased Islamic extremism in the neighborhood that could spark another attack like the terrorist assault on the city of Mumbai in 2008, for which it holds Pakistan at least partly responsible. And Pakistan is concerned that a revitalized Afghan Taliban could embolden its homegrown Taliban movement, further complicating its security issues. over 70% people in USA and Europe want an end to war India and Pakistan also share an interest in limiting the rise of the Afghan Taliban, albeit for different reasons. India is wary of increased Islamic extremism in the neighborhood that could spark another attack like the terrorist assault on the city of Mumbai in 2008, for which it holds Pakistan at least partly responsible. And Pakistan is concerned that a revitalized Afghan Taliban could embolden its homegrown Taliban movement, further complicating its security issues. Pakistan launched offensives against the militants in Bajaur, and in Swat. Millions remain displaced to this date. Now, there are new pressures to launch an offensive in North Waziristan. The drone policy, killing thousands of Pakistanis , mostly women ,children, and defenseless people. Collateral damage, we are told!
President Barack Obamas administration has pledged to begin a drawdown soon of US forces, which represent nearly 100,000 of the 140,000 international troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and to complete the withdrawal by 2014. The withdrawal of the U.S.-led NATO force from Afghanistan has regional implications, with some in the neighborhood, above all India, fearing that the influence of its neighbor and rival Pakistan could grow if the Taliban is able to regain power in Afghanistan. Pakistan, for its part, is unhappy over the degree to which India has gained influence in Afghanistan since the Taliban's ouster in 2001. The leaders of India and Afghanistan have sought to play down these fears. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said during a visit to Afghanistan in May that his country supports the Afghan government's efforts to negotiate with the Taliban to bring an end to the almost 10-year-old war. Earlier this month, Afghan President Hamid Karzai visited Pakistan and announced new measures aimed at improving security and ending the war in his country, including the creation of a joint Afghan-Pakistani Commission for Reconciliation and Peace in Afghanistan to negotiate with elements of the Afghan Taliban.

Pakistan's leadership, for its part, has indicated that ending the war next door will go a long way towards reducing instability in the region and perhaps help repair the damaged relationship between Islamabad and Washington.

On December 20, 2001, more than two months after the U.S.-led attack began, the UNSC authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to take all measures necessary to fulfill its mandate of assisting the Afghan Interim Authority in maintaining security.[103] Command of the ISAF passed to NATO on August 11, 2003.[104]

Defenders of the legitimacy of the U.S.-led invasion argue that U.N. Security Council authorization was not required since the invasion was an act of collective self-defense provided for under Article 51 of the UN Charter, and therefore was not a war of aggression.[98][99] Critics maintain that the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan were not legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter because the 9/11 attacks were not armed attacks by another state, but rather were perpetrated by groups of individuals or non-state actors, and that these attackers had no proven connection to Afghanistan. Further, it is their opinion that even if a state had perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, no bombing campaign would constitute self-defense; the necessity for self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation..[100] In 2000, the Taliban had issued a ban on opium production, which led to reductions in Pashtun Mafia opium production by as much as 90%.[397] Soon after the 2001 U.S. led invasion of Afghanistan, however, opium production increased markedly.[398] By 2005, Afghanistan had regained its position as the worlds No. 1 opium producer and was producing 90% of the worlds opium, most of which is processed into heroin and sold in Europe and Russia.[399] In 2009, the BBC reported that "UN findings say an opium market worth $65bn (39bn) funds global terrorism, caters to 15 million addicts, and kills 100,000 people every year."[400] While U.S. and allied efforts to combat the drug trade have been stepped up, the effort is hampered by the fact that many suspected drug traffickers are now top officials in the Karzai government.[399] Recent estimates by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimate that 52% of the nation's GDP, amounting to $2.7 billion annually, is generated by the drug trade.[401] The rise in production has been linked to the deteriorating security situation, as production is markedly lower in areas with stable security.[402] The extermination of the poppy crops is not seen as a viable option because the sale of poppies constitutes the livelihood of Afghanistan's rural farmers. Some 3.3 million Afghans are involved in producing opium.[403] Opium is more profitable than wheat and destroying opium fields could possibly lead to discontent or unrest among the indigent population.[404] Several alternatives to poppy eradication have been proposed, including controlled opium licensing for poppy for medicine projects.

Controversy over torture

In March 2002, ABC News claimed top officials at the CIA authorized controversial, harsh interrogation techniques.[420] The possible interrogation techniques included shaking and slapping, shackling prisoners in a standing position, keeping the prisoner in a cold cell and dousing them with water, and water boarding.[420] A United Nations study in 2011 reported on interviews with 379 detainees. It found those held by police or intelligence services were subjected to beatings, removal of toenails and electric shocks.[421

Cost of war
The cost of the war reportedly was a major factor as U.S. officials considered drawing down troops in 2011.[295] A March 2011 Congressional Research Service report notes the following about Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan: 1) following the Afghanistan surge announcement in 2009, Defense Department spending on Afghanistan has increased 50%, going from $4.4 billion to $6.7 billion a month. During that time, troop strength has gone from 44,000 to 84,000, and it is expected to be at 102,000 for fiscal year 2011; 2) The total operational cost for Afghanistan from the beginning of the conflict in 2001 through 2006 only slightly exceeds the amount spent in 2010 alone $93.8 billion. The projected total cost relating to Afghanistan from inception to the fiscal year 2011 is expected to be $468 billion.[296] The estimate for the cost of deploying one U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is over US$1 million dollars a year.[297]

The British demarcation established as a result by the Durand Line was a deliberate strategy designed to divide the Pashtun territory along the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The overall effect of the division was to alienate the Pashtun tribes from their neighbors as part of the British divide and conquer strategy, or divide and rule. This strategy had the ultimate effect of fostering anti-colonialist sentiment in the tribal regions, and Pashtuns as a result had a deep desire for independence and freedom from British rule.[36] However, this claim by Afghanistan is rejected by Pakistan on the basis of existing Pushtun population in the territory of Pakistan. As of 2009, there were 27 million Pashtuns living in Pakistan. In addition, there were 1.7 million predominantly Pashtun refugees from Afghanistan. There were estimated to be more than 12 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan in 2010. Karachi has a larger Pashtun population than Kabul.

Territorial dispute between Afghanistan and Pakistan

Further information: AfghanistanPakistan relations Pakistan inherited the 1893 Durand Line Agreement after its partition from the British Raj in 1947 but there has never been a formal agreement or ratification between Islamabad and Kabul.[5] Pakistan believes that under uti possidetis juris it should not require one[11] because courts in several countries around the world and the Vienna Convention have universally upheld via uti possidetis juris that binding bilateral agreements are "passed down" to successor states[27] Thus, a unilateral declaration by one party has no effect; boundary changes must be made

bilaterally.[28] At the time of independence, the indigenous Pashtun people[15] (including members of the Khudai Khidmatgar movement) living on the border with Afghanistan were given only the choice of becoming a part either of India or Pakistan.[6] Recent legal debate on the Durand Line issue has focused on the original nature of the contract between Afghanistan and British India. Some scholars have suggested that the Durand Line was never intended to be a boundary demarcating sovereignty, but rather a line of control beyond which either side agreed not to interfere unless there were an expedient need to do so. Memoranda from British officials at the time of the Durand Agreement incline towards this view. Scholars suggest that the frontier agreement was not of the form of an "executed clause" which usually caters for sovereign boundary demarcation and which cannot be unilaterally repudiated. Rather, they conjecture that it is of the form of an "executory clause" similar to those which pertain to trade agreements, which are ongoing and can be repudiated by either party at any time. This is, however, a matter of ongoing debate. Other legal questions currently being considered are those of state practice, i.e. whether the relevant states de facto treat the frontier as an international boundary, and whether the de jure independence of the Tribal Territories at the moment of Indian Independence undermine the validity of Durand Agreement and subsequent treaties.[29][30] On July 26, 1949, when AfghanPakistan relations were rapidly deteriorating, a loya jirga was held in Afghanistan after a military aircraft from the Pakistan Air Force bombed a village on the Afghan side of the Durand Line. As a result of this violation, the Afghan government declared that it recognized "neither the imaginary Durand nor any similar line" and that all previous Durand Line agreements were void.[31] They also announced that the Durand ethnic division line had been imposed on them under coercion/duress and was a diktat. This had no tangible effect as there has never been a move in the United Nations to enforce such a declaration due to both nations being constantly busy in wars with their other neighbors (See Indo-Pakistani wars and Civil war in Afghanistan). In 1950 the House of Commons of the United Kingdom held its view on the Afghan-Pakistan dispute over the Durand Line by stating: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom has seen with regret the disagreements between the Governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan about the status of the territories on the North West Frontier. It is His Majesty's Government's view that Pakistan is in international law the inheritor of the rights and duties of the old Government of India and of his Majestys Government in the United Kingdom in these territories and that the Durand Line is the international frontier.[32]