Oh my. It would probably be wiser to let someone else clean up this mess, but here I go anyway...

the decision on how the President, Congress and U.S. military should approach the war in Afghanistan is profoundly difficult

Nope. It really is as simple as let's get out of Dodge.

Nowhere in his uncharacteristically short post does Glenno mention Pakistan, another complicating factor in any decision American leaders must make.

Why should he mention Pakistan? It is an interesting country, but it does not complicate the issue of US involvement in Afghanistan. If anything, it simplifies it - if the Taliban have a safe haven in Pakistan, where the US can not operate freely, then victory is impossible (as if that weren't the case anyway). Just one more reason to get out.

Additionally, a heavier military footprint might alienate the Afghan population, which undoubtedly is tired of foreign occupiers

_MIGHT_ alienate the population? Sir, large segments of the Afghan population are already alienated.

(although Afghans have been fighting among themselves for centuries and can't seem ever to get their shit together enough to competently govern their own territory).

It's not their fault that their country was artificially created by the Brits, who threw differing ethnic groups willy nilly into a new nation state. Nor is it their fault that Afghanistan has been a pawn in great power struggles, first in the cold war and now in the war on terrorism.

Don't blame them for the mess which they did not create. And even if they can't, as you so colorfully put it, "get their shit together," well that's their problem. We are under no obligation to fix their situation, and we weren't invited to help in any case.

If the U.S. withdraws, it will allow the Taliban and their Al Qaeda allies free reign in not one but two nations,

Where is your evidence for this? Even when they came to power, the Taliban never controlled the entire country. Remember the Northern Alliance? Perhaps the Taliban will regain power in Afghanistan if we leave, perhaps not. Either way, there is no guarantee that they will invite al Qaeda back to set up shop, since the two entities are distinct.

And, as you say, even if we succeed in driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan, they will STILL have a safe haven in Waziristan, where they can regroup for another go. Unless you are suggesting we invade YET ANOTHER country, and one with nukes to boot, I don't see what we can do about the Taliban's Pakistani safe haven.

Abandoning Afghanistan to these backward, brutal, medieval monsters will not do the country any favors and likely will lead to more violence toward Afghani civilians, moderate Pakistanis and even Indians, who are among the Islamofascists' most hated enemies due to the Kashmir dispute.

This might be true - I certainly have no love for the Taliban - but we can't defeat them anyway. And it's not like the American presence has brought Jeffersonian democracy and economic renewal. It's not like we've really liberated anyone. We're simply propping up a highly corrupt government, at high financial and human cost, for an unknown period of time until we're forced to leave in the end.

Also, the presence of US troops is a danger to the Afghan population since it ensures continued fighting. The Taliban attacks our troops and engages in terrorist attacks at civilian infrastructure. We bomb Afghan weddings from 20,000 feet because someone said an al Qaeda operative might be passing through, etc.

the Taliban's cowardly hit-and-run attacks.

Some would say bombing villages from 20,000 feet is cowardly too. And honestly, what do you expect them to do? Go into battle formation and make a frontal assault on Bagram? It would be suicide.

Of course they make hit and run attacks. It is an effective tactic, and crying about it isn't productive.

In conclusion, this is not a difficult issue to get right. Of course we should leave - we should never have gotten involved in the first place!

I hate the kind of paternalistic attitude that your post embodies - that they "can't get their shit together," so it must be up to us to help them. That despite the ubiquitous evidence that we can't win this fight, we should carry on anyway and ruin countless more lives and waste billions more dollars.

Really, my six year old son is wise enough to make the right decision on this issue.

Great post. There really is intelligent life out there.

sure Cindy Sheehan continues to get arrested protesting, but where is everybody else? Where is the larger liberal base?

Very few people are directly affected by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Most people go about their daily routines just like they did before.

No cost, no complaint, basically. People tend to get angry enough to demonstrate and take real action when they are faced with real costs.

Sure, the governement is spending large sums of money on the war - but again, it is hard for an individual to identify any direct negative effects from this red ink.

The notion of telling the rest of the world that we'll dial it back, but you'll never reach us, and don't have the right to even try, is inconceivable to me.

I've no doubt it is inconceivable to you. That merely displays your ignorance of our ecological predicament.

More importantly, it's inconceiveable to them.

Indeed - and that's why we're all doomed, why die-off is unavoidable.