The fall of the Taleban and Osama's death will not stop future terrorist attacks.

Arif Sayed, Dubai

The thing which is wrong with the US strategy, if one does exist, is that they have completely misread the Afghanistani mentality and are now caught up with something they cannot end or get out of. The carpet bombing of cities in Afghanistan will lead the US nowhere in its fight against terrorism and will only result in the deaths of innocent civilians and more resentment towards the West. We all accept that America is a giant among nations, but I well remember the words of Shakespeare "O, its excellent to have a giant's strength; but it is tyrannous to use it as a giant". Its sad to see all these deaths for, as we all know that the fall of the Taleban and Osama's death will not stop future terrorist attacks.
Arif Sayed, Dubai, UAE

I do not think there is a good strategy on the humanitarian dimension of the war.
Jaime Saldarriaga, Bgot�. Colombia

The strategy has obviously not worked or else the Afghans would be revolting against their Taleban leaders and insisting on the hand-over of Bin Laden, who is currently hiding behind women and children. Why is it not working? Maybe the attacks on Afghanistan are not fierce enough (obviously less fierce than the Taleban). I think that there should have been more show of strength and propaganda before any action was taken. The suspense often makes many people more afraid than the action. It also stops people getting killed. Didn't any of the powers that be learn any of this from the schoolyard fights?
Stewart, Strasbourg, France

I am not a politician but the war is not clear. I believe the world had to do something to protect us from these people, but we need more information on what results they are getting, We were led to believe that these people had no major weapons to fight with, but after this long I do not see anyone held accountable for what happened in America. Only ordinary people suffering.
Patricia Christie, Scotland

It must be of paramount importance to retain this support

Allison Bell, Sydney, Australia

The strategy so far appears to be yielding little result. Of course bombing the country will help to destabilise the Taleban regime and disrupt the coordination of any response. Unfortunately, it also destabilises the coalition with moderate Muslim states. Surely it must be of paramount importance to retain this support, to show this is not about religion but purely to bring a mass murderer and his associates to justice. It is not about killing innocent people. It is not about making up for a lack of intelligence by taking pot shots at warehouses that look like they could be housing the enemy, it is not about dictating who should govern a post-Taleban nation. It must be about working with the international community to bring about one end: the discovery of all cells of the al-Qaeda network and the trial of the members of such networks in an UN-approved court of law.
Allison Bell, Sydney, Australia

The strategy should be clear - to arrest a suspect named Bin Laden and bring him before a court of justice. This is the sort of thing handled regularly by police forces around the world. Despite the scale of it and its international scope, this is primarily a police operation, not a military conquest. So let's think what our reaction would be if one of our police forces in pursuit of a criminal, bombed a whole neighbourhood in order to eliminate him. That's what is happening here and it cannot be justified.
John O'Neill, Whangarei, New Zealand

War is hell. This was true during the American Civil War as it is today. It is unfortunate that innocent people are killed in this war but it is foolish to wring our hands and make excuses for it. No war was ever won using air power alone. There is no choice but to send in ground troops. Make no mistake, there will be many casualties and the Americans should realize this and not bail out of the war because of these casualties. The Russian experience in Afghanistan should be made clear to the American people and the degree of casualties suffered by the Russians made clear to the American people. Bin Laden is bent on destroying western culture and must be stopper whatever the consequences.
M Cohen, Tel Aviv

This war has two strategies - the hidden one and the professed one. The professed one is to catch Osama Bin Laden. That, according to the Pentagon itself, is not likely to happen. The hidden strategy is to assert political control over Afghanistan, and thereby control vast quantities of natural gas in that region. An added bonus is to satisfy the American public's demand for revenge. Another bonus is that the US government can now use this as an excuse to funnel trillions of dollars of the US taxpayers money to its defence companies. If a few miserable Afghans are blown to smithereens in process, well, that is "collateral damage".
Arif Syed, Aligarh, India

What is clear is that there is not much of an alternative strategy being suggested either, other than snipe at the Americans. The strategy was initially confused, a fault of a few White House Staff attempting to extend the necessity of action in Afghanistan to other countries, particularly Iraq. It is more the tactics that are questionable, not helped by the lack of unity between Afghan groups and their backers. Which is at the heart of the problem, Afghanistan has been high-jacked by Bin Laden and his group. The Taleban are dependant on Bin Laden Arab and Pakistani fighters to keep a grip on the country. Though this is not a conflict to initially "liberate" Afghanistan, it is a useful outcome. Then the international community can give the Afghans the support to rebuild and run their own country.
Barry B,UK

We have not proven Osama's guilt despite Bush's insistence that "we know he is guilty". He is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Besides, none of the hijackers were Afghans and we have not shown the world Afghanistan's involvement in the events of Sept 11th. Hence, this war does not have clear basis or strategies. It only seems to be an attempt to take light away from the fact that the US war on terrorism should begin from within, referring to US policies and double standards in the Middle East.
Sanober Amin, Chicago, U.S.A

The West is responding exactly as Bin Laden would have hoped and predicted

Nigel Tilley, UK

The military aims are quite clear, what the political end goal might be is another question entirely. Given the haste with which "war" was declared in the aftermath of September 11th it is unsurprising that the political aims will shift as a wider understanding of the regions problems and political pressures are better understood. The military are at war so bombing to reduce the chances of having your soldiers killed in a battlefield that is poorly understood seems reasonable, if highly unpalatable from a humanitarian perspective. There was only ever one way this was going to be played out after Sep 11th - let's just hope for everyone's sake it is over as quickly as possible. The West is responding exactly as Bin Laden would have hoped and predicted.
Nigel Tilley, UK

To all the people who think that the best way of handling this is to talk to the Middle East to resolve differences I have only this to say. I wish you had been on one of the planes on Sept 11 so that you could have talked to the terrorists then and got them not to do it. After all talking is always the most effective way to defend yourself against a brutal attacker bent on your destruction. I'll remember that one next time I get mugged.
Stuart, MK, England

I absolutely disagree with killing of innocent people in NYC - it is an act of cowardliness and unbelievable hate, but with the same philosophy I cannot agree with killing ordinary and already suffering people in Afghanistan - that is cowardliness as well. Is the US really trying to show how a wealthy nation they are by using million of dollars worth of explosives to destroy an old scrap of metal worth a couple of hundreds of dollars stolen from Russian soldiers 15 years ago?

Are the US trying to do the same backstabbing to the Northern Alliance as they did to the Indians a couple of hundreds of years ago (Indians got whisky and weapons to kill each other - just so the white man does not get hurt?) The US is pushing the Northern Alliance to fight the Taleban on the ground, even though, Northern Alliance are not acceptable future leaders in Afghanistan . There is huge danger coming out - by killing more and more innocent people in Afghanistan, there will be more and more such monsters as Bin Laden.
Jarek Matousek, Prague, Czech Republic

The strategy is not clear because originally it was stated that not much of it would be leaked. However, I think Rumsfeld is really pushing it with Musharraf. If this bombing continues through the Ramadan period, support for the war by Pakistan will decrease. Then the whole "war against terrorism" will fail and cause more anti-Americanism worldwide. Even here in New Zealand it is quite powerful - among people of all races and creeds.
Chris, Auckland, New Zealand

So far, the only thing "clear" about the US "War on Terrorism" is how unclear it is. Many conflicting reports and irrational actions, coupled with justified cynicism of US international policy based on past maliciousness, will unravel the misty atmosphere of "America's New War" for what it really is: A pretext for intentions as yet unknown to us. But the only thing we do know is that more innocent people are dying for the innocent people who died in the attacks in the US. How can you justify the murder of a child in Kabul for the murder of a child in NY? You cannot, and so, quite rationally, you cannot say that this war strategy is clear in any war, it's primitive, reactionary and animalistic, and mirror's the backward consciousness of the influential leaders of the world.
George, Yarraville, Australia

If the war's strategic objectives were clear to the public they would not be secret or effective.
Scott Myatt, New Braunfels, Texas

I think the USA and the coalition are doing fine

James Blyee, East Hartford

I think the USA and the coalition are doing fine. But at the end of the military aspect there must be a political settlement to ensure that a democracy is put in place. Therefore, the Northern Alliance needs to be supported so that a new government is in place. In short, the strategy is to overthrow the Taliban government and replace by the opposition that has been fighting so long. This will be a way out for the displacement of those wicked persons who are terrorising us.
James Blyee, East Hartford

We all certainly sympathise with what happened in the USA, but that sympathy does not make me agree nor support the killing of civilians in Afghanistan. There can't be war on terrorism, simply because the supplier of terrorists is inexhaustible. therefore dealing with terrorism should be dealt with in a completely different way. i.e deal with the roots of the problem.
Yahya , Christchurch, New Zealand

The objectives af this war are very clear, and they are being carried out with great skill and thought. The objective here is to remove the Taleban from power by helping the forces from within Afghanistan that are against the Taleban. Once the Taleban is dysfunctional, someone will rat on Osama and the remaining Taleban leadership and special forces can deal with them. It is clear that Osama is in bed with the Taleban and visa versa. Both must be uprooted or there will never be peace. Comparisons to the WW2 bombing of England are crazy. The WW2 bombing was targeted towards civilians in London. This so called carpet bombing is targeted towards rural military targets.

This bombing is the only effective way of meeting the objective. Other CIA driven operations by themselves could take years. Using ground forces without preparation by bombing would lead to many dead British and American soldiers. So the strategy is the best we have in this life and death war that we are in.
Anthony, California,USA

In light of the strategy used, the objectives of the attack have become unclear

Mushtaq Hussain, Australia/India

In light of the strategy used, the objectives of the attack on Afghanistan have become unclear. It does not however mean that what is going on is unclear. Only the objectives of this particular episode. I hope when this is over, the leaderships shall have some credibility left. I would really like to commend the planning committee in Pentagon for sending in yellow food packets and then sending in yellow cluster bombs in the same area. To all my friends out there. If you can't use your own mind, you cannot contribute anything new to this world.
Mushtaq Hussain, Australia/India

No, I don't think the politicians are getting their message over very well. However, I think that the war objectives ARE actually quite clear - the terrorist organisation in Afghanistan must be smashed and the bin Laden creature apprehended if possible. Anything less is to forgive terrorism. Perhaps the war should be run by a committee of news hacks and then we would have nothing but reports of how clear the objectives are.
Duncan McDermott, Ipswich, UK

What many people in the world do not understand is that the United States is at war. This is not a "reprisal." It is war, and there a very clear strategy: a ruthless, relentless determination to totally exterminate bin Laden and his terrorist organisation.
Michael Clague, Virginia, USA

They are only making more terrorists in what they are doing

Jeffrey, Manila, Philippines

I don't think the bombing of this already war- stricken country would get the USA anywhere. They are only making more terrorists in what they are doing. Imagine the children who would lose their fathers and mothers because of this war. They would grow up hating the people responsible for this. Who wouldn't, right? I suggest they sit down on this, and talk it over with the people involved. Use their brains and not their brute force.
Jeffrey, Manila, Philippines

America's strategy has been very clear and profound much, much before 11/9/01.
Imran Farooqui, Indian in Saudi

To Kirsten Reberg-Horton: Why should the west pay the price for the "terrible inequality in the world?" Why must I sacrifice my life and liberties because the American "experiment" worked? Perhaps China, or Cuba, might be more to your liking. But as far as I can tell, communism and forced economic equality hasn't worked very well anywhere - the human spirit is competitive, but passionate - like most Westerners.
Jamie Bessich, Huntington, Long Island, NY

I do not believe that violence will ever end violence

Kirsten Reberg-Horton, USA

I do not believe that violence will ever end violence. As long as the root causes of terrorism persist; terrible inequality in the world in terms of wealth, health and well-being - terrorism will continue. What the west needs to do is reach out with a vision of equality for the entire world. The only result of this war will be to create more hatred - more terrorists.
Kirsten Reberg-Horton, Raleigh, USA

If you want to do something effective: take the US troops from Afghanistan and make them patrol the Israeli-Palestinian border. But instead of understanding (and partly solving) the problems, we are just make things worse.
Stephan Siegel, New York City, USA

To those who suggest that the US and Britain are eying the natural resources of Afghanistan: why would they risk alienating or toppling the governments of friendly, much more important oil producing nations in the Middle East for Afghanistan�s scant resources or a pipeline? If the Taliban thinks keeping western oil companies, and oil money, out of Afghanistan will improve the life of its citizens, they're obviously wrong. But I don't really see why America or Britain should really care about that right now. Quite frankly I don't think enough thought went into the war before it started to come up with an aim like that.
Alex Schmitt, Vancouver, Canada

The killings of innocent civilians is being justified at the expense of avoiding American casualties

Ilyas, London

To Sidney: If you are fighting for the right cause you should be prepared to sacrifice for it. Unfortunately, Americans are not willing to risk casualties. If Americans fight the Taliban on the ground, surely they will be able to avoid civilian casualties and will be more effective. The only problem in this case will be possibly a large number of their own casualties. The accidental killings of innocent civilians is being justified at the expense of avoiding American casualties. Contrary to your analysis, I think it is the Americans who are being cowards!
Ilyas, London

To Ilyas, London; The US already had innocent civilian casualties, in an UNPROVOKED grotesque action, there is no justification needed for you or anyone, to prevent it from happening again.
Ricardo, Mexico

To Sidney of Pennsylvania, USA: The civilians injured and killed in Afghanistan had nothing to do with Ben Laden and his entourage. When the Taleban offered refuge to Bin Laden their opinions certainly weren't asked. You are right that they are additional casualties of Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts, but they are casualties of the United States' past mistakes as well. The United States should have not dealt with people like Bin Laden during the Afghan-Soviet War and turned a blind eye when Pakistan was installing the Taleban regime in Afghanistan in the first place. You are suggesting that the lives of innocents killed by errant bombs are less important than of those who were killed intentionally by terrorists and this is fundamentally wrong. Whether we are talking about innocent civilians killed by terrorists or errant bombs, any human life has the same value.
Alam, USA

To Neha Khan: You're correct. The Afghans are unfortunately paying the price. But not because America is itching for a war. Those injured and killed in Afghanistan are additional casualties of Mr. Bin Laden and his cohorts. Errant bombs, as tragic as they are, are not equal to the intentional targeting of civilians. They are a cruel reality in any conflict. Why don't these cowards stand up and fight the war they began, rather than hide amidst civilian populated areas?
Sidney, Pennsylvania, USA

It is surprising to see surgery taking place in Afghanistan without giving any acceptance of foreign policy failures of America. It does not require any more intelligence than a mere man on street to say that this is a culmination of American foreign policies. Such mistakes cannot be rectified by dropping bombs on poor Afghans in the name of catching one person.
Rambabu, Singapore

Time will show that the military campaign is futile-militarily as well as politically

Syed Salim, Malaysia

Time will show that the military campaign is futile-militarily as well as politically. The strikes now appear to be acts of revenge to please American citizens rather than rooting out terrorism. America must accept the fact that there other ways to bring justice to terrorists, aerial bombings on a miserable country is not one of them.
Syed Salim, Penang, Malaysia

Whilst I sympathise with all of the people involved with the bombing of the World Trade Centre, I cannot see how the bombing of innocent civilians in Afghanistan will solve anything. For many years, people in N. Ireland and mainland UK have been victims of terrorism. But did we ever drop bombs onto the Irish people? NO! Why? Because it isn't acceptable to bomb many innocent people to try and get the few responsible for terrorist atrocities, which is what is happening in Afghanistan.
Garry Stanton, Birmingham, England

I think that if the bombing proceeds in Afghanistan the war would reach no point of resolution. And the only way I believe to get a real solution to all the problems the USA is facing on terrorism is to sit down and talk to the people who feel that America and it's policies in the Middle East are doing no good to them. And also the USA should rationalise on the effect it has by imposing these policies on these countries.
Daniel, Australia

Your comments during the programme

I definitely do not condone the actions of the terrorists of 9-11. But I cannot condone the bombing of Afghanistan either. The US strategy appears clear: spend a billion dollars and make a martyr of Bin Laden.
Chua Wee Nam, Singapore

A Pakistani friend of mine, recently returned to his homeland, was at my side as we viewed the events of Sept. 11th, from our workplace in North Carolina. He had difficulty understanding the general tenor of the conversations around him, at that moment, that it would be absolutely necessary to dismantle the Taleban hosts of these monsters. He cited the sacred duty of a Muslim host toward his guest. I gently asserted to my friend that any community is within its rights to remove a murderer from their midst, by force, and without regard for the sanctity or sovereignty of borders.
Elliott Walsh, United States

Isn't it obvious that the whole 'war' issue is really a publicity stunt for the Bush administration in the USA? If they really wanted Bin Laden 'dead or alive' they would have their secret service zip in, grab him, and zip right out without anyone knowing. Surely the United States has enough intelligence for such a job. President Bush now has the public support, probably a reason why he's finally admitting to recession issues.
Simon Butcher, Melbourne Australia

How can the war strategy be clear when this war is only for the sake of having a war? America just wanted to satisfy it's people and poor Afghans are paying the price.
Neha Khan, Canberra, Australia

Even as a by-stander in Singapore, I feel terribly upset about the actions that the Americans have taken

Karno Widjaja Singapore

I feel that this strategy is unclear and the objectives have not been explained clearly to the public. The Pentagon just stated that the objectives are just to get Osama Bin Laden dead or alive and to destroy the al-Queda network. I feel that the Americans simply do not care about civilian lives in Afghanistan and just state excuses, such as the bombing of the Red Cross facility. Even as a by-stander in Singapore, I feel terribly upset about the actions that the Americans have taken.
Karno Widjaja Singapore

The strategy, whatever it was, has totally failed. The world's poorest country has withstood an all out air assault from the two most potent air forces in the world. This is the Pashtun's Blitz spirit.
Nausherwan Lahori, Lahore, Pakistan

The only way to achieve quick results in the Afghan war is to use nuclear weapons. The only other course is the correct one, the slow piece by piece dismantling of the Al Qaeda network.
Carl Lovett, Beltsville USA

Western politicians say that this war will be a long one; Britain's chief of defence staff says the war could go on for fifty years. Does it mean bombing impoverished, vulnerable innocent people of Afghanistan for fifty long years?
Mohansingh, India

I refuse to call what is happening in Afghanistan a war because in war you have an opposition, what we in the third world see are innocent victims, among them women and children being bombed. A situation that we already see here but without the bombs. How can we then not show solidarity? I ask you when a global coalition of two countries continues to punish them without showing us evidence why?
Mike Amelo, Abuja, Nigeria

The prime objective of the war is perfectly clear: insure that Afghanistan is no longer used as a staging ground for terrorist attacks. This involves destroying the Taleban and al-Qaeda, which is what the military, in my view, is focused on now. This cannot happen overnight. I think President Bush was right when he said that this is not an 'instant gratification war.' .
Christopher A. Baker, USA in Tilburg, Netherlands

Your comments before we went ON AIR

This is not the time to debate the political correctness of battle techniques

Roger Hayes, Santa Rosa, USA

Osama Bin Laden openly voiced his hatred for Americans and all westerners. He stated that all civilians were legitimate targets of his Jihad. On September 11, he proved that he was not just making noise. Clearly, the strategy of this war is to deal with this threat to civilization. This threat cannot be overstated. The possibility of the twisted Taliban/al-Qaeda network obtaining nuclear or biological weapons of mass destruction is frightening. The strategy of this war is simple- eliminate the threat.

This is not the time to debate the political correctness of battle techniques. Surely Bin Laden had no reservations about flying airliners into office buildings. We should not fret over B-52s and unexploded cluster bombs. What will it take for us to realise Bin Laden meant what he said? Shall we wait until he attacks London or releases smallpox in Paris? Bin Laden may be xenophobic and evil, but he may also be perceptive. He is convinced that the west does not have the fortitude to fight off his terror regime. Let's not prove him right.
Roger Hayes, Santa Rosa, USA

No, the strategy is not working. While we see on TV the pictures of dead Afghans being pulled out of rubble from American bombing, we see or hear nothing about a dead Bin Laden or terrorists. The claim that this war will be a long one just gives us some room so that if we mess up, we can say that we never said this was going to be short and easy. If our intelligence is the best in the world then let us get the terrorists, not the Afghan people.
Tassie Bader, San Fransisco, USA

Repeatedly bombing one of the poorest nations on earth is not the long- term answer to combating terrorism. I understand the initial strategy, which was to take out the military operational sites of the Taleban, but beyond that it does not seem to have a point. Capturing Bin Laden will placate several million people in the west but it will not dispel the reasonable fear that now permeates here. There is no easy answer and I am convinced that the US will be damned if we do and damned if we don't. There is a part of me that would like to just see the close of the borders and for the US to become totally self-reliant. We have all the resources we need right here. Having our forces and our people in other unfriendly environments just invites more trouble. I know my view sounds isolationistic but after September 11 and after reading some of the comments of late, I am leaning in that direction.
Timothy Spruill, Freedom, NH, USA

Who cares what the war strategy is? All that matters is that the war against these terrorists is won.
Shahla Samii, New York, USA

The US may be giving a mandate for repressive regimes to continue in the same vein

Lindie Korf, Johannesburg, South Africa

It is well known that one man's terrorist is another man's liberation fighter. Illegitimate governments are very fond of labelling their opponents "terrorists". With this war on terrorism, the US may be giving a mandate for repressive regimes to continue in the same vein. In its mobilisation of an alliance, the US has befriended a number of repressive regimes. Will it in future be able to deny requests from its new friends to assist them in suppressing opponents, or will it continue to set its own standards of morality? Is the war against terror a global one, or is it an American one?
Lindie Korf, Johannesburg, South Africa

The war effort against terrorism is unclear in it's objective. The coalition have no viable alternative to the Taleban; the Northern Alliance are as fundamentalist, cruel and harsh as their Taleban counterparts, and no-one's heard a whisper from the southern tribes! Carpet bombing a nation only builds their resolve - ask those who suffered the Blitz! The International community should have presented the 'overwhelming evidence' linking Osama Bin Laden to the September 11 attacks - and perhaps the Taliban would have handed Bin Laden over.
Richard, Peterborough, UK

I don't think a war strategy can ever be clear.

Darren, Bristol, UK

I don't think the war strategy is clear, I don't think a war strategy can ever be clear. This war is caused by an uncertainty about the future that America and the West do not like. Bombing a country does not necessarily bring about a solution. In fact, bombing Afghanistan brings about even more uncertainty about the future as individuals and countries decide if they are for this war or against it. There are too many unpredictables. People do not like reports of innocent people dying on their televisions. What is predictable are further acts of terrorism, perhaps due in part to our current heavy-handedness.
Daren, Bristol, UK

Yup, its as clear as mud. Go in there, and bring Bin Laden to justice. No wait, capture him or kill him, and destroy the whole Al-Qaeda network. Add to that, the overthrow of the Taleban government without helping the Northern Alliance. Then, conveniently forget about the gross human violations of the Northern Alliance, and help them anyway. A few days of carpet bombing ought to avoid civilian casualties.
Billy, UK

They are bombing them to restrict their ability to launch further attacks, and to discourage others from launching similar attacks. A simple aim that still manages to get twisted into absurd conspiracy theories.
Pete, UK

At the moment, the only strategy appears to be "keep bombing because we can't figure out what to do next."
Keith, London, UK

There is a naivete in the attitude of senior politicians towards the likely outcome of the military action

David Hazel, UK

It is beginning to look as though the US is making up its strategy as it goes along. There is also a naivete in the attitude of senior politicians towards the likely outcome of the military action. Regardless of how well this kind of thing plays out in Hollywood movies, the reality is that military action never works against terrorism, which feeds off the negative spin which military action provides in abundance. All that happens when armies try to fight terrorists is that you end up with more terrorists, as we found out in the decades of troubles with the IRA. Those people who are questioning the military action are not "wobblers". They are people who are seriously concerned that it will only make Bin Laden and his demons more powerful.
David Hazel, Fareham, UK

I agree that the current military campaign under way in Afghanistan is badly planned and its aims are not clearly defined - though to expect any war to be without innocent victims is very na�ve in my view. But I think that many people in the west miss the whole point of what's going on. Americans were very swift to react because they take very seriously the possibility (and very wisely in my view) that the next time one of these guys strikes there will be no more planes or car bombs but a thick cloud mushrooming over one of the big European or American cities. I think it is very reasonable to suggest that September 11 attacks were not an isolated accident but a precursor of a new stage in the history of east-west relations. Given the effect of minimization of arms and growing extremism in parts of Muslim world we are just a few years before the beginning of new era of super terrorism which will be carried out by means of biological chemical and maybe nuclear weapons .I personally have a feeling that an assassination of Bin Laden or the fall of the Talibans can't seriously delay this happening. And when it does happen, the issue of whether the Taleban is sheltering Bin Laden makes them legitimate target for military action or not will stop troubling the minds of so many people in the west. They'll be much more preoccupied with the issues of personal security and the survival of their children and close ones.
Oskar, Jerusalem, Israel

We're less that a month into this, and we've a long way to go yet

Mark Newdick, Danbury, US

A lot of people said at the start of the Gulf War that we'd get bogged down in another Vietnam; and the same lot of naysayers said that Serbia couldn't be defeated by an air war alone; and so it goes on. While I reserve the right to criticize my government, I see no need to question or second guess their judgement at this time ... we're less that a month into this, and we've a long way to go yet. They have my confidence, my support and my loyalty ... and I trust them not to fritter it away. Perhaps one should reserve ones criticism for the news media who, lacking anything but Taliban propaganda to report, have resorted to stirring up dissent by irresponsible speculation ... making news instead of simply reporting it.
Mark M. Newdick, Danbury, CT - US

We have no coalition, no achievement to show the public and not even daily briefings to let people know what is going on.

Ali Sanjarani, Camberley, UK

The strategy is not clear nor can it be. The war machine that is developed for use during the cold war and in a European conventional theatre can not be used against tribesmen who are spread over a vast country with no military concentration. The US made 2 big mistakes, the first to try and form a coalition and in doing so postponing any immediate retaliatory action and the second mistake was for president Bush to openly declare that the terrorists will be smoked out and brought to justice. Now, 4 weeks later, we have no coalition, no achievement to show the public and not even daily briefings to let people know what is going on. All we have is the military spokesman's word that they are doing something. That something, which in my opinion is near nothing, will come to nothing.
Ali Sanjarani, Camberley, UK

The strategy is far from clear, unless you believe that an individual's life in Afghanistan is worth less than a Briton or an American. Targeting power plants, dropping cluster bombs (some of which do not explode upon impact) carpet bombing villages, and red cross warehouses will only worsen the already appalling conditions people in that country are now experiencing.
Edi Sarr, Banjul, Gambia

What could be clearer than the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden?

Julian Foster, UK

What could be clearer than the capture or killing of Osama bin Laden and the destruction of his terrorist network and all who harbour it? That was the war aim on day one and today. Nothing has changed, not should it. I am not an admirer of Tony Blair, and I would not vote for him, but his war aims were, and are, quite clear.
Julian Foster, UK

I find it interesting that so many Brits can confidently say, "the Americans want revenge." What gives you the knowledge to proclaim such a thing? Most Americans are not thinking about revenge, but rather their future safety and liberties. We have not forgotten 9/11, but we do hold certain entities responsible for it occurring - Osama and Taliban pals. In addition, we do not want in any way to cover up our own security failures - they are being swiftly dealt with in Congress.
Jamie, Huntington, NY

They said it would take time and it will.

Nick Jones, UK

If there is a military stragegy then it has not been communicated to the general public. But then, why should it? Can you imagine been on the ground and the world's media reporting what you were going to do tomorrow/next week? Did the generals during WW2 tell everyone the exact date and location of D-day. I don't think so. Credit the coalition with some intelligence: The war aims are simple to remove Bin Laden and his Al-Qaidi network through air attacks, economic sanctions, diplomancy, and land forces. They said it would take time and it will.
Nick Jones, UK

Of course, there must be a clear strategy. But, clearly, no one but those in charge should know about it. Why should the military planners tell the whole world about it? That would only benefit the enemy. The only worthwhile speculation would be whether they have the right strategy.
Goh Heung Yong, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

There is no strategy at all. Dropping bombs on a country in a state of war since 1979 is merely crude vengeance. It is a face-saving exercise for George W. Bush and a tacit admission that his intelligence services are inept - unable to see the attacks coming and unable to track down those assosciated. The September 11 hijackers were neither from Afghanistan nor did they receive training in that country for their appalling crimes. There is still no hard evidence gainst Osama bin Laden, although the media have already found him guilty and letter writers everywhere talk as if he was personally responsible short of flying the aircraft. As for going into Afghanistan, then the opinions of our Statesmen are staggering. Can they not speak to the Russians about their attempt to invade Afghanistan? Can they imagine fighting in Winter there, or at altitude, where the locals believe that a Westerner could not surive? If they do invade, how will they set up a government? Do they realise that the Northern Alliance are as fundamentalist as the Taleban? Can the West lecture us about "democracy" when they fell over backwards to liberate Kuwait, a country where only 8% of the population can vote?
Phil, UK

The US is looking to set up base in that region

Rashaid, UK

The Taleban was willing to give up Bin Laden before the first bomb was dropped; the condition was "to see the evidence first hand". Personally, I think that was correct stance to take. Britain or any other country would never hand over someone without evidence, why is this different for Afghanistan? For me, the US is looking to set up base in that region, this is their perfect opportunity.
Rashaid, UK

The strategy is probably not working. After four weeks of military action, the strategy of the war is still not clear. The Americans and Britons have totally failed to clear their goals and achievements. First they want to capture the Usama Bin Ladan and his Al-Qaida network, and now they only want to replace the Taleban Government in Afghanistan. They should stop bombing Afghanistan. There is no way that one can justify the bombing of such people, who are already fighting with hunger.
Shanila Durrani, Karachi, Pakistan

The strategy does not seem to be changing at all, but the tactical measures may change from time to time

Euan Gray, Edinburgh

The war strategy is clear and simple. Firstly, neutralise the al-Qaeda and bin Laden. Secondly, enforce a new government in Afghanistan which will not support terrorism. Thirdly, ensure that other governments around the world get the message. The strategy does not seem to be changing at all, but the tactical measures may change from time to time.
Euan Gray, Edinburgh, UK

The strategy is clear, but it has little to do with military objectives. The strikes are purely political. The majority of Americans want revenge. The evil ones had to be punished and so bombs had to be dropped. I really don't believe that the military thinking goes beyond that.
Joe Ryan, UK

As I recall the strategy for this war on terrorism was set out soon after the 11th September. It was to be a war on many fronts, was to take as long as it took, maybe years, that it would include overt action by troops, and covert action that would not be visible to the public. So far nothing has happened to cause me concern that the Government's strategy is unclear. It may be of course that the MEDIA is confused, secret action by secret agents do not make good television! and the installation of unpublished security machinery is just that, unpublished. As for the media in general, it seems that the old adage "never mind the truth, publish the story" has become the principle aim of most. If there are no photos, run out an ageing armchair expert to fantasize, or better still show computer graphics put together by the editor's 10 year old son. Let's give the war the time it deserves.
Barry P, Havant, England

How has the campaign made any American safer?

MK, USA

The war strategy is obviously to prove that the US can't be messed with. But beyond that? I think the military leaders are figuring it out one day at a time. That's why they change their tune every press conference. It's a reckless campaign that may have devastating consequences we can't even imagine now. My question for Rumsfeld would be - how has the campaign made any American safer? It hasn't.
MK, USA

To the myriad and faceless critics of allied strategy in Afghanistan: How wonderful it is that you have the luxury of sitting at your computer and firing shots at our military and government strategy. Finding faults is easy sport-hardly a challenge for such brilliant minds. But what about solutions? Any constructive suggestions? Has any one of you got a single workable counter proposal?
Shane, USA

Shane's appeal for "a single workable counter proposal" sums up the problem. The US had to do something and quickly. Bombing seems to be the only answer they came up with. They now tell us it's going to be a long-term process. So would sitting down with muslim leaders and trying to come up with a workable solution. However, that's more difficult to sell to the US public (and military).
Joe Ryan, Paris, France

To Shane,USA. How about using intelligence to find Bin Laden and then assasinate him - after all a US drone had him in it's sites a few weeks ago but didn't have authority to fire. This action could also be used against his henchmen as well. If the true aim is to topple bin Laden and al Qaeda then surely it should be an intelligence campaign and calculated removal of the top men in the organisation. That strategy together with cutting off the finance of these groups would work and be morally correct. Carpet bombing Afghanistan is not the right way to defeat these evil butchers and only leads to resentment in the wider Muslim world. So Shane, there is my solution.
AC, UK

The Coalition's strategy is very clear - to rid the world of terrorists and punish those who harbour them.

Chad, USA

The Coalition's strategy is very clear, "To rid the world of terrorists and punish those who harbour them". If you ask yourself, "Why are we going after the Taliban and al Qaeda", just remember what happened on September 11th. September 11th is all the reason the Coalition needs! Have faith in the Coalition and the evidence they have against these terrorists. The United States witnessed the horror of terrorist attacks first hand. Leaders of the Coalition will make sure our children's children aren't faced with the same horror. Please don't forget September 11th.
Chad, USA

No I don't think the strategy is clear, first it was going after Bin Laden and his terrorist network, now it seems its changed to wiping out the Taleban. Something to bear in mind is that the hijackers of the planes were from the Middle East, and not one Afghan amongst them, yet the US are bombing them. The real long-term strategy here is the untapped gas and oil fields in that region, that is what America wants to get its hands on. You will never defeat terrorism it will always be around, also the carpet bombing that's going on at the moment won't work - the Taleban know what the US will do through media outlets, so they just move their forces about out of the bombs range.
Darrin, UK

The aim of this war has been clear from the very beginning: The Great Powers of the world are attempting to set up an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. The daily machinations and turnabouts in tactics in no way deviate from this plan. Rather, they are the ongoing adjustments to an ever-evolving situation. If you want to know the end-game, though, or if you want to make good guesses of what tomorrow's tactics will look like, just think of that pipeline and ask, "What's the shortest route to the completion of this goal."
Joe Hillstrom, Boston, USA

I'd like to make comments on a few points.
Firstly, the Taliban can't see all the evidence against Bin Laden because most of it is probably from spy sources within the Taliban. Secondly, the strategy has changed to remove the Taliban because a fundamentalist regime, which uses religion to hide the fact that they are the biggest suppliers of Opium in the world, should be tackled. Extreme views do not aid the plight of the world at the moment.

To those who suggest that the US and UK have other motives, mainly regarding natural resources around Afghanistan, it would be foolish to suggest that they don't. However, I think that the strategy should be continued. I have also read many comments from readers who argue that the people of Afghanistan do not deserve to be bombed. That is true and they have been largely powerless to prevent the rise of the Taliban or to the bombing of their country.
Richard Bentley, Liverpool, UK

I would say the strategy of our government is totally unclear. Part of that feeling stems from the fact that our government has not released enough information on its agenda and what they hope to achieve. The other part stems from what I see as a complete failure of what our foreign policy should have been and the fact that our government had not taken necessary steps to avoid this. I feel that our government could have taken steps tighten security and chose to ignore what was taking place around the globe in regards to terrorism because its only agenda was to keep the money rolling in.

Now we are faced with a problem which is so far out of control, that our government does not have the capability to take what may have been a more logical approach. The bombing of Afghanistan represents our failure in being impartial to what was happening around the world in regards to a such one sidedness in economic and material resources. What was expected to happen when the West controls a majority of the world's resources yet has only a fragment of the population? We should have been prepared to fight to the death for our values, but the fact remains that we are showing extreme weakness in practising what we preach.

Faced with an inevitable world conflict, we do not have the backbone to go and fight, instead we just drop bombs as a hope to achieve a quick solution. This has gone on far to long. This type of strategy worked in beating Hirohito and Hitler after having atrocious casualties in the battles that led up to it, however, I think we need to take on a tougher attitude and be willing to go fight and die for what we believe. Otherwise, all of our political rhetoric on "fighting the war on terrorism" will be completely empty.
Jim, Hoboken, USA

When the necessity of war is in question, of course it will only receive mixed support. There were no negotiations between the US and Taleban and the US government did not consider the conditions of the Taleban concerning Bin Laden's trial. Because the US denied the Taleban offer to bring Bin Laden to justice, the war is not about fighting terrorism: it is simply about toppling the Taleban.
Henry, USA

The objectives of the war have been made crystal clear from the start

Andrew Crane, USA/UK

The objectives of the war have been made crystal clear from the start and have been repeated many times. The strategy the US has in this war is also very clear. However nobody is going to communicate that strategy to the press and the chattering classes. I don't think it's worth wringing our hands over the crumbs that the Pentagon and MoD are throwing to the media. I would speculate, however, that Iraq will soon be foremost in the thoughts of the military strategists.
Andrew Crane, USA/UK

The strategy changes from day to day according to the prevailing political conditions. It's becoming clear with the bombing of Red Cross food depots that part of the allied strategy is to accelerate the starvation problem - perhaps to cause food riots. The dropping of the little food parcels is not meant to alleviate the situation at all, but is merely a sop to fool the gullible of the USA and Britain. What really makes me sick is when the apologists for the war say that the civilian deaths are unintended and therefore cannot be compared to September 11 deaths. For 30 years in the UK we have had to listen to this sickening distortion from the IRA. Now we are getting it from our own government. When you plant or drop a bomb, you are responsible for all the people it kills - there's no such thing as collateral damage. If you believe that the death of innocent people is a price worth paying to get Bin Laden then you are no better than him.
Charles Moore, Edinburgh, Scotland

What is really necessary is an all out, sustained, devastating, unrelenting attack on the Taleban. Why should we worry at all what some governments will think or do, most will do nothing, either because they fear the consequences from the coalition or from their own population.
Phil, Bolton, UK

The strategy is far from clear

Phil B, Bath, UK

The strategy is far from clear. If the bombing is meant to break the will of the Taleban then the lessons of the London Blitz, Dresden, Vietnam, Iraq and so on have all been wasted. All these campaigns served to achieve was to rally support amongst the ordinary people for their leaders, however unpleasant some of them were. The west is rapidly losing the moral high ground that it held after September 11 with each innocent Afghan civilian killed in the bombing. What we need and have a right to demand from our leaders right now, is a bit more brains and a bit less brawn.
Phil B, Bath, UK

A word about the issue of continuing to fight during Ramadan. I don't agree with the bombing campaign, but to stop during Ramadan would surely send the message that this is indeed a war against Islam. I don't believe the British government would have called a ceasefire in its struggle with the IRA, simply because of a Catholic holy day.
Steve Moss, London, UK

Capturing Osama Bin Laden is easier said than done. Does this new strategy help the United States gain its goal? They should probably be targeting the mountains instead of major cities.
Peter, Finland

When are fools like Roger Nettleship going to wake up to the real world? It is appeasement like this which got the free world into this predicament in the first place. If terrorist states like Libya (remember Lockerbie, Yvonne Fletcher etc.) had been dealt with properly others would have taken note and would not have dared to risk the consequences of state sponsored terrorism
Paul,London, UK

I agree with people who say the strategy and aim of the war is a fraud. The war on terrorism is a war of aggression for control of central Asia being conducted by the Anglo-US imperialism and not for a just and peaceful solution to terrorism. The inhuman state terrorism against the Afghan people, the Taleban government and even those who are accused of terrorism is a barbarous act that has no legality or aim than to create terror among, not only the Afghan people, but other people in the region. The use of carpet-bombing, cluster bombs or any type of intervention is a crime under international law. To support Bush and Blair's war is to support gangsterism. Everyone should be active against the war.
Roger Nettleship, Newcastle UK