While a U.S.-led coalition battles in Iraq, The Washington Post's Marc Kaufman has been stationed in Kabul, Afghanistan, updating Post readers on the latest developments in that region -- from the expected release of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to reaction to the war in Iraq.

Kaufman was online live from Kabul, Afghanistan on Wednesday, March 26 at 9 a.m. ET, to field questions and comments about Afghanistan.

The transcript follows.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Washington, D.C.: Have the living conditions in Afghanistan improved since the new government took over, and is the new government seen as effectual? Is there enough aid coming into that country to facilitate change?

Marc Kaufman: Yes, conditions in Afghanistan have definitely improved for many Afghans, though certainly not all. The country has been through war and civil strife for decades, and so a time of relative peace will inevitably bring improvements. But also, in an entirely unprecedented way, the international community has committed to helping out the country and that help if beginning to come. Afghans are very industrious and successful business people when given a chance, and they seem to be running with that chance now. But this said, there are still areas of the country where there is fighting between warlords and between American forces and Islamic militants, and so conditions remain unstable there.

washingtonpost.com: Marc, thank you for joining us this morning. As the U.S. continues to press into Iraq, Afghanistan has taken a bit of a back seat in the minds of Americans. What is the latest news coming out of Kabul? Are U.S. military forces still a visible, strong presence there? Has there been any evidence of a resurgence by the Taliban?

Marc Kaufman: The U.S. military remains very present in Afghanistan, and is the glue that is holding the country together. American troops are not deployed in the capital, Kabul, which is patrolled by about 5,000 international peace-keepers, but they are in many other places around the country. A day doesn't go by when those forces aren't attacked in some form -- with rockets, with explosives along the roadside, with ambushes. But so far, I believe, the Americans have been able to keep the former Taliban and other Islamic militants on the run, and to keep them from grouping together for any major attack. The U.S. military is being very aggressive in Afghanistan --- doing searches and major missions all the time -- and I don't see any end in sight to the need for that kind of action. While the Taliban and other Islamic parties are not terribly popular in Afghanistan right now, there is a deep-seated suspicion of foreign involvement. So far, I think the Americans have been able to neutralize that. But it's unclear how long that can last.

Falls Church, Va.: Has Mohammed Karzai issued any official statements of position on the war in Iraq?

Marc Kaufman: The Karzai govt. has officially joined the coalition against Saddam, though it is not providing any assistance other than its support. There have not been any significant demonstrations against the war in Iraq here in Afghanistan, and the predicted increase in terror attacks has not occurred. But it certainly might. Because this is an Islamic country, the support for the American position in Iraq has been largely private rather than public and vocal. But Karzai has definitely thrown in his cards with the U.S.

Washington, D.C.: Are there any fears there that the prisoners being released from Guantanamo will return to their "old tricks?"

Marc Kaufman: Regarding the recently released prisoners from Guantanamo, I had a very interesting day yesterday interviewing them. Some were clearly picked up by mistake and never were a threat to the U.S. or anyone else. But some others seemed to be still militant a bout their Islamic beliefs, and it is certainly possible that they could join rebel groups. That said, it does not seem that Islamic militants are having much success right now recruiting Afghans to attack the government and the U.S. It is more Afghans who fled to the tribal areas of Pakistan, which are not under full government control, who are making the attacks and providing the manpower. Personally, I think the most important question about them is who is giving them funds and supplies. I haven't seen any good information on that.

Wheaton, Md.: Is is safe to assume that the Taliban and al Qaeda have no more power in Afghanistan? How long do you estimate until Osama is killed?

Marc Kaufman: Since my last response, the power went off in the brand-new internet cafe I am using and I've had to scramble a bit. Life is like that in Afghanistan. Regarding bin Laden, reports of his imminent capture seem to come and go like the clouds. I spoke recently with Gen. Dan McNeill, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and he says he is still not certain that bin Laden is alive. But if he is, McNeill said, then he is likely holed up in a remote area and probably not travelling much. That position is somewhat different from the one often heard from Afghan intelligence and some others that bin Laden is on the move around the tribal areas of Pakistan. It seems pretty clear to me that if he's alive, bin Laden is very well hidden and probably being protected by a local population that supports him.

Demarest, N.J.: Americans and Afghans were told we were going to remain committed to Afghanistan -- to rebuild it, to establish stability and democracy there. My impression from the news is that we're in fact barely propping the Karzai government up: letting warlords divide up the country outside Kabul, letting restrictions on women return, and even allowing political violence to come back to the capital. I understand that building a stable civil society is a long, hard slog. But are we honestly making the slog? Or are we (the United States, the international community) simply doing cosmetic things to help, without either enough money or enough political will?

Marc Kaufman: Some people here definitely contend that the U.S. is trying to rebuild Afghanistan on the cheap, and that the effort is doomed to failure. My three months here has given me a somewhat different view. I think there is an unprecedented American and international effort underway to stabilize and rebuild the country, and many Afghans are eager to participate in it. But there are clear structural problems: the U.S. does provide support and sometimes money and supplies to regional commanders (warlords) that the military believes it needs in the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban. But the Karzai government believes, with often good reason, that the warlords are their biggest problem -- that they sow discord, undermine the central government, and keep essential taxes and customs monies from Kabul and government coffers. In the west of Afghanistan, for instance, governor and commander Ismail Khan controls a customs depot that takes in more than half of the entire revenues of the government. He keeps almost all of it for his region, and sends some funds only because of strong pressure from countries like the U.S. I think the Karzai govt. would like American help in unseating men like Ismail Khan, but I don't think the U.S. military has any interest in helping in that regard. They don't see it as their mission, and they worry that throwing out some local strongmen could lead to greater instability and problems. On the other hand, some argue that the warlords will be overthrown only now that their own power isn't fully consolidated, and if it doesn't happen soon, it never will. It is definitely a complex problem. By the way, Ismail Khan is also doing good things for the city of Herat with the customs money he is taking in. The issue is that he should be doing much more, and he should be sending those national funds to the central govt.

Kensington, Md.: Once al Qaeda has been defeated in Afghanistan, will the troops go into Pakistan and destroy the terrorist infrastructure there?

Marc Kaufman: There are certainly many people in the American military here who would love to take the fight into Pakistan, and have concluded that American troops will continue to be attacked until the situation is brought under control in Pakistan. But here's the problem: in an election last fall, Islamic fundamentalists won control of the two large provinces that border Afghanistan. Their platform was that the Americans already in Pakistan should be forced out immediately. To send more Americans into Pakistan now would be a major and doubtless bloody endeavour, and it could easily lead to the fall of the government of Pervez Musharraf. So I don't see any major changes soon in American policy regarding Pakistan, and even the hot pursuit that has been in effect for months is being hush-hushed because of sensitivities in Pakistan.

Burke, Va.: What percentage of the country do you think the interim government really controls? Do you think enough aid is flowing in to keep Afghanistan stable?

Marc Kaufman: Many say that the central government controls Kabul and little else, but I think that is an overstatement. The Karzai government appoints the governors who rule the provinces and in theory can fire them. In fact, several have been removed recently, though none of the powerful ones who really contend with Karzai for power. While it's hard to say how much control the government has, it is clear that it is gradually getting more and more. Regarding the inflow of aid and whether it can keep the country stable, I think the central factor in keeping the country from falling apart is the American military. Any significant changes in troop deployment would have major destabilizing consequences. The flow of aid is important, but to a lesser degree. So far, most of the aid has gone to meet humanitarian needs, and the rebuilding of roads and schools and power plants is in its infancy. (One exception is the road being built by the Iranians from the Iran border to the Afghan city of Herat.) But that rebuilding process is ramping up, as well as the manual-work for food and money efforts. That said, you often hear Afghans complain that too much of the aid money for their country is going to pay the, by comparison, large salaries of aid and U.N. workers, and they grumble about all the huge Landcruisers jamming the streets in Kabul. But there is a strong desire in Afghanistan to see an end to war, and that will also help keep the place stable, or what passes for stability in Afghanistan.

Cumberland, Md.: I think it would be morally wrong for the US now to attempt to overthrow those like Isamail Khan and Dostum, who helped us win in Afghanistan. I think Karzai must deal with this problem alone and if he is too weak then maybe it is time to replace him with someone like Quanooni -- do you think that Karzai will stay on past his current term or don't you think he has served his purpose and it is time for him to move on?

Marc Kaufman: Karzai told me in an interview that he has not decided whether he will run for president in 2004, but others tell me he is already making plans. Karzai is a remarkable leader for Afghanistan now because he is a near-pacifist. His instincts are to negotiate and compromise, and some see that as weakness and indecision. Others see it as a welcome change from decades of war and killing. My gut instinct is that he is quite popular with the average Afghan, and that the warlords he often spars with are much less popular. The problem, of course, is that the warlords have the guns and soldiers and Karzai has only the beginnings of an Afghan National Army. The US is the main supporter and trainer of that army, and the effort has run into a lot of problems, with the result that only about 3,000 soldiers are now in that force. (The goal is to have 70,000 trained men in the ANA.) Quite a few people here worry that an election in 2004, before a national army is in place, is a very risky business and could dangerously divide a still very fragile country.

Harrisburg, Pa.: How does one destroy the roots of terrorism within Afghanistan? Some have claimed if we could help eliminate the poverty and improve the economy of the country, the economic conditions that breed terrorism would be removed. Yet, more recent terrorists were found to be from middle classes, and even have families. What can the United States do to best help rebuild Afghanistan and win the public support that will remove the conditions that tend to breed future generations of terrorists?

Marc Kaufman: The roots of terrorism are deep in Afghanistan and, alas, the U.S. helped plant them. What the mujahideen fighters did to the Afghan government of the 1970s and the Soviet army would now be considered terrorism, but that whole effort was bankrolled by the U.S. This is one of the terrible ironies of the whole Afghan-Taliban-al Qaeda story -- that so many other nations (and self-proclaimed leaders) have used Afghanistan for their own purposes, and the Afghans have suffered so much for it. But remember - none of the men who attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11 were Afghan, and there does not seem to be any groundswell of support for Islamic militants in the country now. This is a wide-open place, where security posts are less than impressive and there are always back ways into every city, yet the number of attacks has remained quite small. There were two attacks in Kabul in December that seemed to be suicide attacks, and a few more in other parts of the country. But that kind of action is, generally speaking, not in the Afghan character right now.

Washington, D.C.: Isn't Central Command overseeing operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Is this stretching our resources too thin?

Marc Kaufman: Yes,I believe Central Command is in charge of both the Afghan and Iraq wars. It is very difficult to learn what the exact deployment levels are here in Afghanistan, but the military insists they have not gone down since the building began for Iraq. But that may be changing: When I was in Kandahar recently, I was told by military people that the several thousand troops at the Kandahar airport would probably be moved out soon. The army is trying to extend its reach with small military-civil teams in up to 9 Afghan cities, and some worry that will take the place of the larger deployments. So far, however, it does not look as if the military has downsized in Afghanistan to a point that it is less effective than it could be. Indeed, many of the search missions that the soldiers go out on end in a frustrating lack of contact with any "enemy."

Cumberland, Md.: Regardless of what we think of him, isn't Ismail Khan taking better care of his citizens and rebuilding his area than Karzai can do in his? Isn't Karzai turning out to be rather a weak and useless symbol?

Marc Kaufman: I spent more than a week in Herat recently, and was definitely impressed with the way the city worked. Streets are being widened and cleaned, parks are being built, and schools are open. But Ismail Khan is also an autocrat who doesn't tolerate much dissent, and there have been credible reports that treatment of women in Herat has taken some unsavory turns under his rule. As one diplomat said to me, "Dictators can get things done quite well." I think Khan is open to pressure, however, and conditions for women seem to have improved since the very critical reports. Regarding the "weakness" of Karzai, I think there are some problems that he faces that inevitably keep him "weak." Ismail Khan keeps a huge percentage of the customs duties on goods coming into the country, and Karzai has not been a able to pry that money loose. It's as if the governor of Maryland said that all the duties collected in Baltimore harbor should go to the Maryland govt rather than to Washington. Without American help, Karzai cant force Ismial Khan to turn over the money, but the U.S. military is very reluctant to get involved. But there are other paths open: the Karzai govt. recently signed an agreement with Iran and India that will result in the building of a new road that would bypass Herat, thereby denying Ismail Khan many of his customs duties.

Piscataway, N.J.: Are any Hezbollah advisors in Afghanistan helping other terror groups?

Marc Kaufman: As far as I know, there are not any Hezbollah advisers in Afghanistan, though there are credible reports that Iranian revolutionary guards are present here.

Gullsgate, Minn.: "Many in the military here would love to go on into Pakistan" -- paraphrasing here but aren't we or rather isn't our military running a little thin; so many wars to fight in order to force 'democracy' and our brand of "freedom" on others? And as an embedded media spokesman, do you have an opinion on our military policies; on condition of anonymity of course?

Marc Kaufman: I have no real opinion about our military policies except to say military force is good at solving some problems, but not others. At this point in Afghanistan, the military plays a key role, and will for a long time. But a growing economy where people have jobs and a stake in the future is clearly of equal importance in making a place like Afghanistan stable.

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.