I think the reason we stayed is it's extremely difficult for any American general or president to admit we didn't unequivocably win the war. How you can anyone say we've lost when we're still fighting? (Would anyone know who Lindsay Graham is if not for the fact, this kind of thinking is very popular with the US media?)
yeah, i don't agree with this at all. by your logic, if at any point over the past eleven years the usa managed to reach a point of relative stability with a moderately trustworthy afghan government ally, they would have jumped on it to leave. i'm not sure if you believe that to be the case for both bush and obama admins but i think it's silly to believe either.
by your logic it wouldn't even have to be a truly sustainable stability. literally only enough to convince the american public that the place wasn't left in utter devastation and the troops left with their chins up.
seriously? that just strikes me as profoundly dubious reasoning, the sort you might see articulated by apologists for an apparently peaceful president that has done nothing to warrant that reputation. there clearly have to be more significant geopolitical reasons for staying than that.
as for you second assertion.... again, what? the war has pretty much lost all credibility as far as i can measure. remember in 08, when the two notable presidential nominees had more or less the same position on afghanistan? because it was the just war? well look at the same conversation now. troops are still fighting. does the public really believe they can achieve even limited victory in afghanistan by 2014? i guess i don't really know, you live down there and i don't, but it seemed the public climate had significantly changed in those four years