So, will Coakley get hammered for this? In a long article covering the debate in Mass. between Coakley (D) and Brown (R), there’s an exchange over the situation in Afghanistan:

Gergen asked Coakley how it’s possible to succeed in Afghanistan without the surge — and Coakley gave a very risky answer for a politician. “I’m not sure there is a way to succeed,” said Coakley. She explained that her concern was with the definition of the very mission there: “If we went in because we decided the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists, we supported that, I supported that. They’re gone.”

Brown called her thinking “nave.” She shot back: “I think it’s nave to say we have troops that we can send anywhere and they’re the best way to go after terrorists who train in the night, and get on planes with bombs in their shoes.” Instead, she said, the better path in some situations is to use intelligence and targeted missions by the CIA and other agencies to go after terrorists as individuals, whether it’s in Afghanistan or Yemen or elsewhere.

They’re gone? No, they’re out of power, but they’re not gone. They keep coming back and until they’re gone, we have to stick around to keep them from reasserting themselves to become a safe haven once again to al Qaeda.