This viewpoint is very analogous to the Big Co. obsession with quarterly numbers. How many companies have screwed themselves by failing to look past next month's bottom line? Having a highly strategic location like Afghanistan controlled by a terrorist-run government bent on the destruction of the West seems like a bad idea long-term.
If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan, perhaps we'd have more money and fewer dead now. But I'd bet anything we'd be far worse off down the line.
So because it is difficult and fraught with past failure, we shouldn't do it? I don't really see how anybody could pose a logical argument for allowing a terrorist government to control a country.
We already completely dropped the ball on Afghanistan once and it wouldn't surprise me if we do it again, but if a country is being used to train an army of extremists bent on the destruction of the free world... well, somebody should probably look into stopping that. And I don't think saying "please" works on those people.
Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe if we never invaded Afghanistan and overthrew the Taliban-controlled government, everything would be peaches right now. I certainly wouldn't have wasted a year of my life in the shit hole. But that seems like the riskier road to take, given what I've learned on the topic.
If we hadn't invaded Afghanistan, perhaps we'd have more money and fewer dead now. But I'd bet anything we'd be far worse off down the line.