Putting your enemy on the horns of a dilemma is one of the hallmarks of great strategy, according to British military thinker Basil Liddell Hart.
This is one way of interpreting the situation in Afghanistan. The Coalition is on the horns of a dilemma. To withdraw from Afghanistan now would throw away all the efforts of the last eight years and leave the weak Kabul government to fall to the resurgent Taliban. To stay in Afghanistan means committing to a protracted and costly counterinsurgency and nation-building campaign where the odds of success are at best uncertain.
When you're on the horns of a dilemma, paralysis, or ineffectual half-measures, often result. Either way, defeat comes, sooner or later. This is why the west should pull out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. Or get in there boots and all. If Afghanistan really is the "important and strategic country" that many western politicians make it out to be, then the west needs to dramatically boost its military and civil commitment.
But are there viable "have your cake and eat it too" options? Such as running a divide and rule policy from a nearby friendly country (perhaps India) - like the Raj and its 19th century strategy of playing off one frontier tribe against another. Or securing several enclaves in Afghanistan and from there striking the camps, training grounds and supply routes of takfiri terrorists and drug smugglers - like a mirror image of guerrilla sanctuaries or Maoist base areas.
