I think everyone misses a central point. Going to the polls in the US and casting one of the 67,000,000 votes which determine the President just doesn't feel like democracy, and it isn't. Voting on the sheriff or budget of a small town (ideally, per myself and the Greeks, of a few thousand) is democracy, as is serving on the council of said entity. The presidential electon is only an anomoly, and in the ideal democracy, one which doesn't matter much because most important matters, except the occasional war, are determined close to home.

Our government is too big, and we insist on training the poor Afgans (who are, in our eyes, mere children which cannot understand the complexity of modern civilization) to go only through the one-in-five million exercise. There was a time we were an example, but now, we only want a rock star as leader. The Afgans have always tended to govern close to home - but we and the UN will fix that!

They are gonna need big governement as a matter of necessity. Multiple clusters of semi-autonomous local collectives may provide the best kind of government in peace time, but if you have an army of armed religious fanatics looking to re-instate a brutal fundametalist caliphate and are prepared to do that over your dead body, you need big government in a hurry.

Fighitng the Taliban requires a strong centrally controlled army. The usual Afghan alternative is to rely on a multitude of militias, each answering to their own respective warlords. Each of these warlords would be motivated by their own self-interest, and it would be child's play for the Taliban to divide and conquer - reach some kind of accomodation with some of the warlords whereby they switch sides in exchange for a seat at their table and a slice of the cake. That is the harsh reality of tribal politics.

A strong centrally controlled army requires a strong central government. History has constantly shown us that when any bunch of people have a monopoly on all the guns, they inevitably become the government/dictator unless (i) they are counterbalanced by a strong central governement they have to answer to, or (ii) civic traditions are so entrenched that it makes military dictatorship unthinkable (but that too requires at least decades of stable central government).

I'm sure that for the average Afghan its a tough choice between the devil and the deep blue sea. Go with the relatively clean, but utter ruthless and backward Taliban, or the relatively forward looking and benign but utterly corrupt Karzai government. For the developed world the choice is obvious - they can live with another corrupt third world backwater run by a tin-pot dictator paying lip service to democracy. They cannot live with another potential haven for international terrorism.

A central government, while having superior fire power and technology, will still get it's ass kicked by the native fighting force which has both the tactical advantage and the ability to blend in with the civilians. Just look at evey superpower that got its ass kicked in afghanistan. Therefore, a central government won't do shit against a motivated fighting force. All you will get is perpetual war. Imagine if some foreign power occupied your hometown. Imagine they dropped bombs on suspected targets and killed civilians in the process. Wouldn't you too be motivated to exact revenge and repel the invading force? This is the situation the U.S. finds itself in. They have invaded a loose amalgam of tribes called a state and have tried to impose its way of life on them. The only rational response for the afghans is to retaliate. Doesn't this make sense? If I tell you to live a certain way against your wishes, aren't you going to resist? If the afghans want to live in a fundamentalist muslim shit-hole, then let them. Worry about yourself and stop imposing your barbaric democracy on people you have nothing to do with.

A strong central AFGHAN government. Who said anything about a central government propped up by the US.

I'm not saying that a strong central afghan government is assured of victory against the Taliban. If anything, it will be likely be a long drawn out conflict with an uncertain outcome, and more likely than not will end with the afghan government reaching some kind of accomodation with the Taliban. But it is a long way better than leaving it to a bunch of opium warlords to safeguard Afghanistan.

I also notice you think America is simply imposing its will on a nation that would otherwise want to be a fundamentalist Islamic state. The truth is lot more nuanced. The Taliban held power in the past by a combination of force and the public's weariness over being pushed this way and that by competing warlords. Its not like they want to be ruled by the Taliban. It was simply resignation to the unpleasant truth that the guys with the guns dictate the rules, and that the alternative (a failed state being torn apart by competing warlords) wasn't much better. I say we let them have a choice. A real choice.

Great observations Khengsta.