I have no doubt there are some Afghans who are more "friendly" toward us and our presence than others, but my brother is in thd Marines, spent a great deal of time in Afghanistan, and I glean enough from him to know your proposition is not the case.  Nor could it be.  He is also about as apolitical as one can be.    

As to your last, quite historically challenged argument, I can only disagree again.  Eisenhower warned us many years ago.  And even forgetting the war corporations, the idea that you can simply invade a country like Afghanistan, with it's myriad of tribal divisions and history of ousting invaders (it is where superpowers go to die), it's culture completely different from ours, and impose your version of freedom or democracy (two words with quite ambiguous meanings) is, in my mind, naive and ultimately dangerously so -- since it leads to the quagmires we have today and have been in since we decided to shun our founders wise warnings against messy foreign entaglements.  

We invaded Iraq and have killed untold numbers of people for purely altruistic reasons, yes?  Which means we must have accepted that ousting Saddam would mean Iran and Iraq would be close allies (unless you, as Bush did, failed to grasp the difference between a Sunni and Shia), or at least a cursory reading of the situation beforehand would've clearly indicated this inevitability.  But we didn't care, or even care to learn.

Why did we begin bulding permament bases, why do we insist on a permanent military presence there, when the Iraqi people and gov't are so clearly opposed this encroachment on their sovereignty?  Because it was our intent to stay.  You don't think we had our eyes firmly on a permanent home for our military presence in the middle east?  Even if you don't, the Iraqis want us out.  Do you believe the Iraqi people have the right to be wrong on that point, that they have the right to insist we leave on their terms and not ours?  Or is it not their country until WE decide it is.  That is what freedom means, after all, the right to say no to power (and right now WE are the power there obviously) and allowing them to stumble their way to their own history, free of our occupation, just as we were allowed to develop as a nation, would indeed be the best measure of our good intentions.  We are in the middle of a civil war there, bribing both sides to go easy on us and each other.  That's a fact.  That's what the surge has been.  And it cannot go on.  It must not.

This is not Germany and Japan (two entirely homogenius foes in WWII), these are societies thousands of years old, divided along often harsh tribal lines.  Hence what we have gotten ourselves into and refuse, out of hubris and stupidity, to extricate ourselves from even when it is clear our presence is no longer wanted.

Lastly, I would suggest that few Iraqis are willing to give a negative assessment of American intentions in their country to any American soldier.  If you honestly believe we only invade countries for pure reasons, fine, believe it.  I don't think history or facts can support it.  The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan do not exist in moral vacuums, no place or people do.  We have unleashed forces of violence and history that no amount of wishful thinking and band-aid military "solutions" can change.  You don't really believe we can afford wars like these much longer, do you?  The financial and psychological drain are too much, the cost in reputation incalculable.  We would be better served by admitting how our own shit st*nks and working hard to turn American, our own nation, into the much more democratic, peaceful and prosperous nation it can certainly become and model for the world.

And by the way, one can care a great deal while accepting the limitations and foolishness of impatient milatarism.  We owe Iraq and Afghanistan trillions in compensation.  But we will never pay it.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that until OBL and his friends are gone it will never have a possibility to happen.

Leaving now just makes it all that much harder to get people to trust us in the future.  Case in point, Poland signs a missile treaty with us in defiance of Russia and Congress cuts funding for the program.  Do we honestly believe that other countries in the future will trust us to keep our word and take a risk?