by cutting and running while leaving millions to be killed by the communist North

Except that there weren't "millions killed" by the communist North after we pulled out of there, so your attempted analogy fails miserably.

And by golly you are wanting to prove them right.

By golly, bin Laden would love us to escalate the war and give jihadis throughout the world the opportunity to come to Pakistan/Afghanistan to make their bones killing infidels as we send more troops into there.

By golly, bin Laden would say his prayers 5 times a day including you PPJ, if he knew you existed.

By golly, keep substituting snark for thoughtful analysis, it works as well as it did the last 323 times you resorted to it,why don't you just call me a commie Obamie supporter and have done with it?

Here's a recent take on the situation there:

What is the current situation in Afghanistan?

The country is nominally led by President Hamid Karzai, but the resurgent Taliban controls important areas. Karzai, who was seeking his second presidential term, was opposed in the recent election by Abdullah Abdullah, a former foreign minister. The key issues included what will be the country's relationship to the United States and NATO, which have more than 100,000 troops in the country working with local forces to fight the growing violence. Complicating the situation is the high level of corruption fueled by cash from the illicit opium trade.

What were the election results?

The Afghanistan election commission says that Karzai is ahead with some 54% of the vote, a majority that would avoid a runoff election against Abdullah. However, the U.N.-backed Electoral Complaints Commission has said there was convincing evidence of fraud and has ordered a recount in some areas.

So what is next for the elections?

It is not clear how extensive any recount would be, but officials say the process could take months. Or, if it appears that enough votes are discarded and Karzai falls short of 50% needed for outright victory, a runoff could be held. Oct. 1 is the tentative date for any such runoff. In any case, the final determination about who is in charge will likely take months at least.

Karzai claimed victory hours after the polls closed on Aug. 20, hoping to cement his hold. But the real test after the elections is whether he is seen as the legitimate victor. That applies inside the country, where even the non-Taliban opposition is becoming restive as well as outside the country, where Karzai has had tense relations with the Obama administration.

Why does it matter to the U.S. who wins?

For the United States, Afghanistan has always been the key to the war on terrorism. For the Bush administration, Afghanistan was the protector of Al Qaeda and had to toppled, eventually to be replaced by Karzai, who was friendly to U.S. interests. Now Afghanistan is seen as a listening post into the Al Qaeda areas of Pakistan and a country that must be protected from the return of the Taliban.

Link

Whether or not we have the will to do what is necessary to get their full attention, re Japan before/after WWII, is questionable.

Hand-wringing is always so helpful and useful, PPJ.

Whenever I hear "Graveyard of empires" shtik I remember that people though the world to be flat, man would never fly and make it to the moon.  Essentially it is used to set the stage for surrender.

Of course, there's part of the problem right away, that you assume there is a centralized "Other" to surrender to, when the reality of it is that occupation to change a nations' culture is a very difficult undertaking.  

The only reason it worked in Japan and Germany after WWII was because we defeated the centralized government in charge and both peoples were so sick and tired of sacrificing for war that they settled for peace under a benign occupation force.

This makes more sense:

Given the nature of the conflict in Afghanistan, a definitive, conventional "victory" is not a realistic option. Denying a sanctuary to terrorists who seek to attack the United States does not require Washington to pacify the entire country, eradicate its opium fields, or sustain a long-term military presence in Central Asia. From the sky, U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles can monitor villages, training camps, and insurgent compounds. On the ground, the United States can retain a small number of covert operatives for intelligence gathering and discrete operations against specific targets, as well as an additional small group of advisers to train Afghan police and military forces. The United States should withdraw most of its forces from Afghanistan within the next 12 to 18 months and treat al Qaeda's presence in the region as a chronic, but manageable, problem.

Link

As for your listing of what used to be thought of as impossible accomplishments, I'll leave you with a thought from Carl Sagan:

appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g. There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.)This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.