I'm a liberal, not a knee-jerk liberal. I want a public option in health care, but that doesn't automatically mean I think Obama should withdraw from Afghanistan. George Will is wrong again or still wrong, depending on your viewpoint.

Quagmire in Afghanistan? I'd agree with that if there was a lack of progress there in spite of concerted effort on the part of the U.S. But hell, it's a grinding war so far because Bush squandered all eight years there. Not enough troops, not enough funding, not enough reconstruction of buildings or political infrastructure. And far too little effort in weeding out corruption.

The U.S. has barely turned its attention to the Afghanistan-Pakistan region from the long distraction of Iraq. You'd think from all the squawking that the U.S. was there for the fun of it and could leave any time it chooses with no repercussions.

Bullshit.

I hate war as much as the next liberal. But U.S. troops are in Afghanistan for a purpose, and the purpose remains to this day: to defeat al-Qaeda and deny the Taliban reconstituiton of the base from which Osama bin Laden waged terrorism against this country.

I was against the Iraq war before it started and throughout that sorry apex in neo-con empire-building. "We took our eye off the ball" committing resources there instead of to Afghanistan. At least that was the left-wing refrain and Obama's stump speech.

But now? The pseudo-reasons for withdrawal abound.

U.S. deaths and casualties are increasing. Well, duh, you might expect that when operations ramp up in a war. Not really a surprise there. But it beats 3,000 killed in a single September day on American soil.

It's too expensive. Yes,  but not nearly as costly as the treasure that evaporated following that same September morning. You won't find an estimate of the cost of war in Afghanistan that comes anywhere close to the toll on our economy following 9/11.

You're invoking 9/11. Damn right. No apologies. Because if you think 9/11 was horrific, wait until the next time 20 guys who walked through our national security cordon get a chance to wreak havoc. Think biological warfare, dirty bombs, chemical plants, etc. Or maybe just a few dozen too many wildfires, in California, say.

But it isn't just we who pay the price of rogue organizations straddling two sovereign nations. Remember Benazir Bhutto? Mumbai? Indonesia? Spain? The U.K.?

Afghanistan is lost and not winnable. Well, no, not really. It was never quite found in the first place, and we all know it. Not winnable? Maybe. We'll have to see.

The Karzai government has done too little so far. Yes, and so have we.

On the other hand, the U.N. reported this week that the bottom has dropped out of poppy prices and heroin production is down by 1/3. That's a start. And so is committing more troops and finally seeing some action on the part of the Pakistan government to weed out al Qaeda sympathizers.

Sweeping the Taliban and al Qaeda completely under Pakistan's back door won't help stabilize that government or reduce the chance of nuclear material or weapons falling into exactly the wrong hands. Sweeping them into Afghanistan means allowing them a base of operations that can launch strikes against the governments there AND in Pakistan and elsewhere.

So here's my idea: Let's kill the terrorists, including bin Laden and all his lieutenants. Let's stabilize the governments in that region and pour serious development dollars into their economies. Then we can leave.