The Australian Government is calling on NATO to deploy more troops to Afghanistan to get the job done properly. The small Australian contingent is part of a 41,000-strong force fighting against Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents.
And American commanders on the ground and in Washington are particularly keen to see it expanded.
But Afghanistan's history is one of stubborn resistance to all foreign forces. Some key figures are suggesting the alliance has already lost the battle.
NATO defence ministers have gathered this week to discuss the continuation of their mission in Afghanistan.
They are meeting in the Netherlands, and the Government there warned from the outset of the talks that public pressure could force it to pull out its 1,600 troops from Uruzgan province next year if they do not get more support from other NATO allies.
That public pressure was kept up by around 150 protesters outside the meeting place, including Bart Griffien.
"We think it's symbolic that the NATO leaders are hiding behind these walls to meet and decide to move on with the mission in Afghanistan while a majority of the Dutch population - and actually I see the same in the United States or in Canada - are against this war and want the troops to get out," he said.
Inside, French Defence Minister Herve Morin said he believed the Dutch withdrawal from front-line areas of Afghanistan could cripple the alliance's operations.
"The sign a country gives - and I said this to the Dutch as I would have told other countries as well - the sign that a country gives by reducing the number of its troops could be an extremely negative sign for the overall operation and for the countries currently involved in Afghanistan," he said.
"We would run the risk of causing a domino effect because the situation would become very difficult to sustain for a number of countries."
The intense fighting is in the south and the east and is dominated by American, Canadian and Dutch forces. German, Italian and Spanish forces dominate the relatively peaceful north and west, but their political leaders are unwilling to send them to the more dangerous areas.
Daunting task
The NATO commander, US General Dan McNeill, has acknowledged his force is not strong enough to hold all the grounds seized from the Taliban, and admits the task is still beyond the Afghan army.
And early this week, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said the restrictions on where European troops can be deployed and what they can do are putting NATO soldiers at a serious disadvantage.
But British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was more upbeat after talks in London with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
"We've put the Taliban on the defensive by the combined efforts of everyone," he said.
"At the same time, our strategy for the future is development, defence and diplomacy. All three working together."
But while the NATO ministers talk, some observers believe the fight in Afghanistan is already lost. Among them is Lord Ashdown, the former UN high representative for Bosnia and a candidate to become the new envoy for Afghanistan.
Associate professor David Wright-Neville is from the Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University. He says it is unrealistic to simply expect that the deployment of more troops will end the insurgency.
"Part of the problem is that overwhelmingly what would seem so far is an emphasis upon a military solution," he said.
"Unfortunately I think the use of hard power has to be a part of the solution but it can't be the only component of the solution.
"We know for instance that countries have, several years ago, committed many billions of dollars to help rebuild Afghanistan, but so far only a small proportion of that money is being delivered."
Afghanistan no longer central to terrorism
Assoc Prof Wright-Neville says the nature of terrorism has evolved.
"I don't think that Afghanistan is itself central to the war on terror, although the Afghanistan-Pakistan border is important," he said.
"We know for instance that Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawhiri, and other key Al Qaeda figures are still very active, moving back and forward across that border.
"They play an important symbolic role. If Afghanistan were to re-fall to the Taliban, it's likely that Bin Laden and the hierarchy, the new and emerging hierarchy that is constructed around him, they would probably re-establish bases.
"Others would move back into Afghanistan, the bases would become active again."
Despite that symbolic role of Afghanistan for Al Qaeda, the country is not essential to the terrorist group.
"Terrorism has evolved: we have now many more what we call 'self-starters'," he said.
"They can train themselves, they can get the skills they need through the internet.
"They're inspired more by Bin Laden and the resistance that he's shown in the face of the invasion, and so the Taliban in Afghanistan is not essential to terrorism.
"But if they were to be really successful in establishing control in Afghanistan, it would provide a significant fillip to the organisational power of Al Qaeda as a movement." © 2007 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Comment and add to the story without registration, but keep the comments meaningful please. Links are not accepted.
