I don't think the Republicans have the moral right to lament about the morass the US has landed itself in Afghanistan or talk about Karzai being corrupt. Afghanistan and President Karzai are but the Republican Party's brainchild. If the Americans are not protesting about the futility of the War, it is because it strikes a chord with the American gung ho mentality of being the 'saviours of the world' and they revel at the idea that they are the most powerful nation in the world. It is only that they find the bodybags revolting since that aspect of war does not fit into the 'all guns blazing, firing from the hip' scenario that is the pet imagery of the American mindset. What is important is the statement of the US Vice President - we are not leaving if you don't want us to leave. As I have stated on various fora that it is in US' strategic interest that they will not leave either Iraq or Afghanistan and instead will leave a sizeable presence to impose its will in the area, since these areas are strategical lynchpins to further US interest in containing the re-emerging Russia and China. They are very important 'listening posts' into the the two challengers of the US supremacy too. What is 'going after terrorists' as the writers imply? The womb of terrorism is just next door to Afghanistan. Now, what has the writers to suggest about the 'exit plan'? Another Vietnam type?