Reply #5: Let's be realistic. Obama is not going to take us out of Afghanistan NOW or anytime soon.

[elocs]

At least there is a connection between Afghanistan and 9/11 unlike Iraq, so the two are not exactly the same.

What is "winnable" in Afghanistan needs to be narrowly and specifically defined. It's too bad that the choices are drawn between either being totally in or totally out. Why can't we think outside the box rather than doing things the way they have always been done? The Afghan people should be at least as motivated in keeping their country as the Taliban is in taking it over. Why can't we tell them that we'll provide them with as many weapons and as much intelligence as they need and they can fight for their country themselves? If they are not willing to do that and the Taliban is not a superior numerical force maybe they do not want their own country badly enough. If they are unwilling to fight for it, how will they hold it after we are gone?

How about paying the poppy farmers not to grow poppies and to grow something else instead rather than destroying the crop, letting them starve, and making them our enemies. As one of their governors said, send tractors, not tanks.

How about simply under the table paying Pakistan to give up Bin Laden and giving them financial aid after that? In the end all of this may be cheaper than doing what we are now and what has always been done.