> It's based on the fact that wars always happen to occur where there's oil or an oil route.

OK, "always" is for effect. But how about some factual examples, specifically those where the same oil wasn't already available for purchase and was afterwards criminally exploited (rather than paid for at market prices) by the neo-colonialist victors?

> US-OEF/ISAF/ANSF are the first armed forces to operate within the borders of Afghanistan since April 1978 whose main duty and charge has been the protection of the general population. 80% of all civilians suffering unexpected violent deaths inside Afghanistan today are killed by the Taliban and their allies.

This to me is the most significant thing. It gives the lie to the facile claim that the U.S. attacked the Taliban for sinister reasons unrelated to Al Qaeda. Those supposed reasons are glibly summarized as "oil" and "imperialism." But those aren't reasons; they're slogans.

If the West leaves now, the Taliban - by mainstream Muslim standards, a monstrous throwback to the seventh century - will take over the country once more.

For much of its history, Afghanistan was notable for its moderate interpretations of Islam. The destruction of the Taliban (a recent movement) would be the best thing that could happen to the entire region. A premature Western departure would leave the Taliban to reimpose its own radical brand of sharia on the entire country, and it would be free to slaughter anyone believed to have cooperated with the infidels. What's more, a Taliban victory would encourage fundamentalist revolution in Pakistan, something which would be far more dangerous to the world than the American presence in Afghanistan.

The Western effort could fail. But that's another discussion.

Check out "Taliban," by Ahmed Rashid (Yale Uinversity Press, 2000). It was published before 9/11.