Well just to continue the fun I'll point out that originally you said they were, and I quote, "controlling Afghanistan" and not "they have Afghanistan under more control", which I agree with.
I said "for their geopolitical purposes, they seem to be controlling the place." I don't view that as much different from what I said before or later.
But! And I guess this is my point, after reading the article you linked to, it sounds like Afghanistan is practically in chaos.
Millions of Afghan refugees have returned to the country since the Taliban were ousted so, judging by the flow of people, you might have to rethink your application of the word "chaos." I would assume they felt a reason to do so and also perhaps they feel enough security that they aren't leaving again, at least not in a manner that's obvious.
The analysis of the British committee was that Afghanistan would deteriorate into chaos if certain things weren't done and soon.
I've said above the status quo probably isn't good enough in the long term so I'm not particularly dissimilar from their position, but I might argue the timing. They're more into the "imminent" thing whereas I might see it years down the road if the status quo doesn't change.
Although I'm not in favour of huge piles of troops coming into the country - more targets as I said above - I can see the need to ensure elections proceed.
In the end though, if 27 million Afghani's don't want foreigners in their country then they'll have to leave. Then they can return to the stone age. Its an Afghan police force and Afghan army that will eventually have to rule the day. NATO and the UN can only make a committment to help them get up and running so they don't collapse in the first test.
I'm just looking at the balance of various mutual interests riht now and I can see some checks on the analysis of the British committee (just an opinion).
International acceptance of the mission via a UN mandate. The participation of NATO, with even Spain looking to increase its troop committment. The fact the warlords probably have an interest in self-preservation and perhaps a profit motive from opium as well. The central government leaves them alone while it strengthens its own forces (the British Government decries the opium harvest). The fact many of these militias preserve their localized power only through a balance of their personal heavy arms. That makes each warlord dependent on maintaining their own tanks, etc. The USA air force could easily pick the tanks of one militia, destroy them from the air and leave that warlord to his destruction by others (the same way they conquered the country in the first place). Therefore the militias have an interest in maintaining some semblence of peace and order among themselves. And the USA, as does the central government, needs the warlords to fill the power vacuum to tame an untameable countryside, or tame it as much as it can, while having open access to seek out Al Queda. For America, it can fight the war there instead of here.
Mutual self-interests that happen to coincide for the moment. Long term, as the central government expands its control, it infringes on the self-interests of the various warlord factions. Long term, the status quo is untenable.
And weaving their way somewhere into all of this is the ex-Taliban and al-Queda terrorists, obviously the most pressing and immediate problem. There self-interest is only in chaos. As immediately as possible, the opposite of everyone else.
So, the committee is right that the status quo is untenable long term. I might disagree with an analysis that puts things at risk in an imminent way. There is mutual self-interest galore arguing against that.
Just an opinion.
By the way, regarding your comment about the "wild west," this is a country where the national sport is playing a game where a calf carcass is tossed between horsemen looking to score a goal.
So yeah, good analysis on your part!! Wild West is right. Not a place most people would want to live.
Cowperson