No. We’re in the neighborhood. Why not take out Mullah Mohammed Omar with the Taliban? Ain’t he #2??
(He heh. #2…) 
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
Are we to invade them all?
[/QUOTE]
Gods, I hope not! 
-XT
I mentioned in another thread the effect withdrawing from Afghanistan would have on the Gitmo detainees. Remember, you can only indefinitely detain combatants until the end of hostilities. Obama is indefinitely detaining about 46 detainees he doesn’t plan to charge, so you’d be force to prosecute or release them if the Executive (or less likely a Court) found that hostilities in the GWOT are indeed over.
The President would be hard pressed to defend indefinitely detaining combatants under the laws of war when the US has withdrawn from Afghanistan where most of them were captured and Osama bin Laden being dead.
I’m not saying this is a strong reason one way or the other to stay, but it could be a possible effect (at least publicly) that he’d have to deal with and justify continued detention. It’s hard enough to justify now, this would further push the issue.
Maybe. But that’s not why we’re there.
Why can’t we just outsource them for torture like we do everyone else? 
Conversly, if BO is serious about closing Gitmo, as I hope he is, this provides cover for that decision. I fear it won’t be so simple, but I wish it were.
+1
Sure, if we can do some good and set up some positive institutions on the way out, great, lets do it, but its not like we are leaving Afghanistan in much worse shape than we found it.
I don’t see what possible reason we would have for 100,000 troops and 100 Billion/year for a country with a GDP of 15 billion/year that doesn’t want us there.
The argument seems to be “we should stay because the Taliban are really really mean” By that logic we should be sending our troops to half the countries in the world.
+1