If we accept it as fact, it leaves little doubt that we have failed miserably in Afghanistan and we should cut our losses and get out now. I imagine that the truth is far short of his dismal predictions but still indicative of the difficulty in pacifying a population when maximum cruel force is not an option and you either lack the money or will to address the problems.

Oh, no, Frank. Withdrawing from Afghanistan would be a disastrous move. For one thing, it would negatively impact the situation in Iraq, perceived as evidence that we lack the will to stick around there either. We can still debate whether attacking Iraq was a wise move, and hold Bush politically accountable for it; but now that we're there, we're stuck there and responsible for the fate of Iraq.

We're now responsible for both countries, and that may be a bitter pill to swallow. But what else can we do? Afghanistan is clearly more important to the war on terror because there appears to be a significant remnant of Al Qaeda being supported by the "neo-Taliban" and operating in northwest Pakistan; the article describes their mutually-beneficial division of labor that frees up Al Qaeda to operate overseas. On the other hand, we can't withdraw from Iraq because we've made such a point of making a modernized & democratized Iraq the centerpiece of our strategy toward the Middle East.

We're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Yep, I agree, it's grim. But we'd only make it worse by giving up and leaving.