Yes.
I would define the other side, or the enemy, as I put it, as the insurgents. Who are they? They are a mix, undoubtedly, of religious fanatics, warlords who oppose the government for their own political, social, or economic reasons, or their troops--probably drug lords, probably smugglers. Whenever you get an insurgency--and this has proven true pretty well throughout the history of insurgent warfare--you're always going to get disparate elements coming together behind one or two major groups that are leading the insurgency. It is not necessarily that they agree with all their objectives, but they want to see the government attacked, or they want to see the government turned over. It is in their own interest--whether it be a political interest, a social interest, an economic interest, or an ideological one--for the government to go away.
What we have out there is some kind of a loose coalition of insurgency, and that leads right into your second question, which was what do we do about that. The answer is we have to try to adjust a constant mix of diplomacy and development on the ground, of reaching out to certain of the elements to try to pacify them, or neutralize them, or manoeuvre them out of the fight, while at the same time the hard-core element--those who simply will not give up for whatever reasons--are usually the ones who are ideologically motivated more than anybody else; those are the ones we have to fight.
What we've got here is a phenomenon that has been called by others “fourth-generation warfare”. It's a very different kind of situation from what we saw either in the Second World War or in the Korean War, and it brings together the necessity to attack it on several different levels at once. That's why the mission your government chose was the right mission. We put troops to defend, but we also have to do development to win over the people, because if we don't win the people over they will inevitably go over to the other side and the government will be lost.