How long will the public tolerate the Afghan war?

Our answer is not very long. The Russians killed all the Afghans and had to finally admit they couldn't win and withdrew. Afghanistan then became the headquarters for Al Qaeda and the Taliban, both organizations who want to destroy the West and our way of life. Pulling out will embolden the Taliban, but staying under the current Rules of Engagement where are soldiers are fighting with one hand behind their back is not worth risking the lives of any more soldiers. This is the same mentality that failed in Vietnam and needlessly cost the lives of our soldiers.

Put aside the fact that American leaders in Afghanistan are unironically using the phrase "hearts and minds" -- the very words used to describe the folly of U.S. policy in the Vietnam era. Does the American public want to continue a war in which Americans die because they're not allowed to fight back when attacked, all for the purpose of increasing school attendance, child immunization, and cell phone use?

If General Petraeus doesn't change the Rules of Engagement, then start the pull out now and declare "we lost." Obama and his Rules of Engagement that favor the Taliban were the wrong strategy from day one.

Cannot believe this Country is going down the same path once again this time led by an inexperienced, inept President who would rather reach out to so-called 'moderates' of terrorists organizations of Islam than do what is necessary to start winning the battles and stabilizing the Country. Why should the Taliban stop fighting when they know the timetable for pulling out win or lose? Our vote is to start the pull out if the Rules of Engagement don't change.

Byron York is right in his assessment of the Afghanistan situation.

Byron York - How long will the public tolerate Afghan war?

Petraeus said that as the fighting increases, and American casualties rise, the public should remember that "progress is possible" in Afghanistan. Petraeus knows that's true, he explained, because he has seen it.

"For example, nearly seven million Afghan children are now in school as opposed to less than one million a decade ago under Taliban control," Petraeus said. "Immunization rates for children have gone up substantially and are now in the 70 to 90 percent range nationwide. Cell phones are ubiquitous in a country that had virtually none during the Taliban days."

It was an extraordinary moment. Americans overwhelmingly supported the invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11 terrorist attacks. In eight and a half years of war there, 1,149 American servicemembers have died. And after all that sacrifice, the top American commander is measuring the war's progress by school attendance, child immunization and cell phone use.

That sort of nation building, especially in a place as primitive as Afghanistan, has never been popular with American voters. It's especially unpopular when combined with highly restrictive rules of engagement that have tied the hands of the nearly 100,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, exposing them to danger from an enemy they're not allowed to strike.

We have dozens of examples of the effects of those rules, most recently in the Rolling Stone article that led to the firing of Petraeus' predecessor, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. The article told how U.S. commanders wanted to destroy an abandoned house used by the Taliban to launch attacks, but were denied permission. Then a 23-year-old Army corporal was killed there.

"Does that make any f--king sense?" a fellow soldier asked. "You sit and ask yourself: What are we doing here?"

Read more at the Washington Examiner