Does anyone remember how many soldiers we had in country by early 2002?
I was thinking that when we decided to play nation building, we screwed things up. Had we limited things to support of the Northern Alliance, it might have forced non-Taliban leaders to cut deals to maintaining control and stability. Trying to set up an externally forced Afghan Govt with US military backing probably just gave the leaders an excuse to be corrupt and not worry about any power sharing (or profit sharing). I figure it set the Taliban up to receive support from our enemies also. Probably a lot more to it, but just a thought.
If we are going to impose a government on a people, we need to impose a government with a governor, laws, and enforcers from us that will follow those laws. Make the people understand the value of the rule of law until they are CAPABLE of self-governance. (It will take at least a generation, probably more.)
If were AREN'T going to do that, we ought to let the people there set up the government however they want and then decide if we can support that. Imposing restrictions for "self-government" so long as they put in place the right "rules" is stupid.
It's more cargo cult thinking: "Look at all these successful democracies in the West! All we need to do is "export Democracy" and they'll be just like us!"
Of course, I'm not so sure that "democracy" in the West is looking all that successful right now, anyway....