Raoul,

Here's another view of the American effort in a British paper. Gardez fighting
If this is true, thank God they are being withdrawn rather than being spent uselessly. And, my guess is that the commanders on the ground have been told their careers would be ruined by casualties. At a minimum any action with a casualty will be examined to the point of nausea, and heaven help if there was the smallest mistake.

The US Army may be having to switch basic strategy, too. The history of American armies since Grant in the Civil War has been to tend to spend lives as though there were an unlimited source of them. Grant's casualties were 3 times Lee's, but Lee couldn't replenish his forces, and Lincoln was happy.

Montgomery in WW II was regarded as overly cautious by the Americans, but the British had a limited manpower pool, and he worked to save lives. Patton, on the other hand, was a lot like Grant.

I'm absolutely sure there is no problem with the individual soldiers or their dedication to each other or the task - but to think one could head into those hills without taking casualties is folly. Like taking on a rat in the dark in his own maze, the rat will win. A high-tech army in a low-tech situation is often handicapped.

I believe those caves, though, have a number of entrances (and exits), and it's impossible to cover all possibilities.