Lamina,
We absolutely CAN win in Afghanistan, but I agree it will take a much different level of political will than what exists now.
"We have the tools, we have the technology!" It's the will to win that needs pumping up!
Bugging out is not the answer.
I think Afghanistan is going to go down as a debacle, period.
First, the traditional CI model depends on some semblance of normalcy at least at one point, to hearken back to and return people towards. Afghanistan hasn't had any real stability OR justice in over 40 years, meaning it's out of living memory for the majority of the population there. It's hard to get people to "remember when" when there hasn't been a "then" to remember for so long it's meaningless.
The other part of standard CI models is to provide enough security that cooperating with the CI force doesn't mean a virtual death sentence for anyone who does it. Between the sheer size of the country, the geography and the isolated nature of the population, we'll NEVER have the manpower available to maintain security in the boonies. It's like Vietnam in 1965. We may do fine in the cities and surrounding areas, but the Taliban will still control the rest of the country.
CI operations typically last 10+ years as well and depend on a national government that's a reliable partner to the military operation. There is no such government in Afghanistan. Karzai is a modern Ngo Dinh Diem only even more incompetent.
Could the U.S. turn Afghanistan into a more stable place that made it a less than ideal spot got terrorist training? Perhaps so. But the cost is going to be so high that I see no way you could possibly justify it.
Iraq was a far, far easier place to intervene in than Afghanistan ever will be. Prior to the first gulf war and the sanctions it was one of the most modern, secular and educated places in the Arab world. The whole Dirka Dirka Muhammed Jihad thing was only an afterthought after the gulf war started and Hussein was using religion to legitimize his rule and stay in power. There is actual infrastructure (as broken and shitty as it is) in Iraq, and we haven't even had to spend much time in the entire northern part of the country due to the Kurds.
Short of full-on nuclear genocide or a decade(s)-long fight with 100k+ guys on the ground, I see no major results likely that we couldn't do a lot cheaper with a lot fewer people, from over the horizon with special ops people and drones targeting the bad guys wherever we find them.
You'll recall the Taliban didn't attack us. They gave Al Quaeda safe haven, which definitely warranted our initial invasion. But frankly if the people of Afghanistan was to live in a violent, miserable Hellhole, it's THEIR problem. I think we should give them a specific timeline (privately, not just for domestic political advantage) that we are GONE in x time, so get their shit together because we are NOT going to fight their war for them indefinitely.
Taking another couple of thousand dead and few thousand more serious wounded when the whole thing is highly unlikely to produce the desired end result is sheer bloody-mindedness or substituting your brain with your ego.
CI isn't going to work long-term in Afghanistan. You can't fight a conventional war against an insurgency and brutality, purely aside from the political costs, near and long term, simply won't work. The Russkies tried it and it was less than useless.
Since you're so sure "We CAN win in Afghanistan," I'd like to hear some specifics that will have any meaning in the larger context of our end goals.
Thumping your chest and intimating that only reason we're having trouble is "will" may feel good, but you have yet to state a specific strategy you advocate. Making Afghanistan a permanent colony with a permanent giant occupying force is not an option. And another decade of war is something we simply cannot afford.