先看一些美国看法【ZT英文】：

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/02/world/asia/afghan-commander-us-john-nicholson.html

The United States’ involvement has moved from a wounded nation’s quest to strike back against the Taliban for facilitating Al Qaeda, to what critics say was a show of military hubris

美国的参与已经从一个受伤的国家寻求反击塔利班因促进基地组织的行动，批评者认为是军事狂妄的表现

https://mwi.usma.edu/afghanistan-become-war-without-end/

此人提了和你先前的纯军事实力的事实，但是他发现美国军方/领导人没有集中精力面对所以并无下面的战略：

A policy to win requires a strategy that aligns political will, intellectual capital, and capacity to defeat the enemy’s strategy. Political will relates directly to the ends sought whereas capacity relates to the means each belligerent employs. Intellectual capital is required to align the means and ends with a strategy that will end the war and bring peace at the costs in time and magnitude acceptable and commensurate with the value ascribed to the policy.

获胜的政策需要一种战略，使政治意愿，智力资本和战胜敌人战略的能力保持一致。 政治意愿与所寻求的目的直接相关，而能力则与每个交战方所使用的手段有关。 需要智力资本来使手段和目标与一种战略结合起来，这种战略将结束战争并使和平的成本在时间和幅度上得到接受，并与政策的价值相称。

最终就是高层精力不集中，无任何政治战略和目标，战术装备虽赢但无法维持胜果，等等。”仁慈“则不是其中一个解释。也就是作者在说，美军和其领导人即无能也思维凌乱。