I am not an expert on military affairs, but consider some facts about the Afghan Theatre.
1. US has only 18,000 troops in Afghanistan. Compare this number with the US troop level in Iraq. (Afghanistan and Iraq are countries with roughly similar area and population, but the terrain in Afghanistan much more favourable to guerilla war.)
2. US hasn't had a very high casualty rate in Afghanistan. Iraqi security forces were dissolved after the fall of Baghdad. This didn't happen in Afghanistan.
3. US has already agreed to stay in Afghanistan for a long time, perhaps even permanently. (See the news report "United States to stay in Afghanistan for long".) ISI will takeover Afghanistan, if the US withdraws.
=======================
Yes.
Your reasoning is sound but, as Zizek said once of Chomsky (I believe on Doug's show a few years back) it's possible to have all the facts right and yet, still reach the wrong conclusions.
Let's try this from a somewhat different direction.
The stated mission of the US in Afghanistan was to overthrow the Taliban and rebuild the country, a so-called 'failed state'.
The overthrow portion of the job was done but thus far, we've seen precious little rebuilding and the mission has changed to become, essentially, relentless Taliban and Talib sympathizer neutralization.
Of course, the US has the ability to maintain this effort for a long time but it's a far from ideal situation from a strategic point of view (it's much better to have bases in a more or less pacified territory). More sustainable would be the actual completion (indeed, an actual start) of the reconstruction project so the need for relentless counter-Taliban operations diminishes.
Because Ulhas, despite its wealth and military capabilities not even the US can afford to be in a low-level hot war for 10, 15 or 20 years which is how long the guerrilla war would last so long as the conditions making it an attractive option to Talib followers persist.
As to Pakistan's ISI filling the void if/when the US withdraws...
There are wheels within wheels here yes? Can we be certain the ISI would be able to suppress (again, without addressing actual causes) these movements forever?
Forever is a long time, as the cliche has it. My argument is that it isn't possible to successfully stamp out these movements militarily. This is the American approach (would ISI be more adept?) and it only creates a feedback loop guaranteeing -- long term mind you, the immediate appearance is of success -- complete failure.
.d.
---------
http://monroelab.net/ <<<<<>>>>> giving up our tears to a neon sky