I have a very different take from Hayabusa, and while I believe that Afghanistan may be a legitimate war, we in the USA, and they in Nato, never were willing to commit the troops and resources to stand even a tiny chance of winning the Afghan peace.
The greatest danger to any occupation is the chaos and anarchy the occupying force bring in its wake. And when GWB allied with the very thugs Afghan thugs that made the Taliban the lesser of two evils, it may have added up to enough military power to win the war, but made it much harder to ever establish a government that could either function or reduce the anarchy, corruption, or the violence level.
At least Obama increased the troops levels, installed generals who half way got it, but without going back to square one which is to give the Karzai government the ole heave ho, and then adding about 300,000 more troops, its pretty well too little too late in Afghanistan. Sadly, IMHO, the Taliban is winning in Afghanistan because they know how to govern, know how to reduce violence in areas they control, and all Nato does is run from place to place turning the whole country into a shooting gallery.
The other thing to note is that the Afghan people would rather have a Government without the Taliban, but the Nato Government has proved to be an even worse alternative, partly because of sins of commission, but mainly by sins of omission.
How can anyone in Afghanistan have any faith in Nato if they can't deliver anything but violence, anarchy, corruption, and even more violence after eight years?
It does not make me into a Taliban fan to say, Nato is even worse than the Taliban.
It did not have to be so, even though it now is, nor does it have to be so in the future. But for now its basically true.
And if we want to win in Afghanistan, either commit the troops and development dollars to win, or alternately scale back our expectations, because even with the troops we have, we can save a part of Afghanistan but not all of it.