As simple an answer as I can boil it down to... We should have either turned it to glass or stayed out. We've accomplished little in the past 10+ years there that we couldn't have done with the use of SF teams and strategic missile strikes. We've wasted billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives, destroyed the economy and for what? We don't own the oil, there is still civil unrest, the local's army we will leave behind probably stands little chance if invaded by the aggressors of the region AND while we were at it, we've reduced or removed a good bit of military presence around the world.
The first gulf war we showed up, in force and bombed the dog crap out of them in Iraq. They lost and Kuwait got their country & oil back, which in turn means we got a big benefit and we gained a key allie in Saudi Arabia as a result of protecting their butts. Most of what we have done since then has been less effective. We probably could have accomplished as much by staying out of it as being in it the way we have been. People of that region have been fighting each other since the dawn of time, over their belief in who's god is better, forcing our belief in democratic life pails in comparison. As Keith says I'd rather fight them there than here but I'd just assume we take the gloves off and really take the fight to them. Being an occupying force is just expensive all the way around, especially when there is no real end game in sight.
So to more directly answer your question.... I do not think we will accomplish much by staying but now that we are there I think we have to be careful how we exit. If we leave too quickly the vacuum effect will potentially open the door for naughty neighbors to swoop in and take over. If we take too long, we have political stuff the world over to deal with, we continue to spend money we dont have and are seen very much as an occupying force. In the end, honestly I don't see the value add for having gone to battle there a second time and history should have taught us to stay out of Afgan.
The first gulf war we showed up, in force and bombed the dog crap out of them in Iraq. They lost and Kuwait got their country & oil back, which in turn means we got a big benefit and we gained a key allie in Saudi Arabia as a result of protecting their butts. Most of what we have done since then has been less effective. We probably could have accomplished as much by staying out of it as being in it the way we have been. People of that region have been fighting each other since the dawn of time, over their belief in who's god is better, forcing our belief in democratic life pails in comparison. As Keith says I'd rather fight them there than here but I'd just assume we take the gloves off and really take the fight to them. Being an occupying force is just expensive all the way around, especially when there is no real end game in sight.
So to more directly answer your question.... I do not think we will accomplish much by staying but now that we are there I think we have to be careful how we exit. If we leave too quickly the vacuum effect will potentially open the door for naughty neighbors to swoop in and take over. If we take too long, we have political stuff the world over to deal with, we continue to spend money we dont have and are seen very much as an occupying force. In the end, honestly I don't see the value add for having gone to battle there a second time and history should have taught us to stay out of Afgan.