1. What he refers to as a religious reform movement is actually religious based terrorism, where the Taliban are "imposing" their extremely cruel form of Sharia Law (IAW your local warlord who can't even freaking read, much less have a knowledgable grasp of Islamic law). Most importantly, most Afghans don't this form of Sharia law, but they do want the fighting to end, which they may believe a Taliban victory would provide.

2. Unfortunately I can't argue this point, and I bet the vast majority of Afghans see us a foreign occupation force, while we still see ourselves as the cowboy wearing the white hat. Just here to help you little people out. Jihad has a degree of popular support because we are seen as occupiers.

5. “He who fights geography is a loser.” All wars take place in terrain, and while the terrain is challenging, we're not fighting the terrain, we negotiating it. The enemy does enjoy some protection offered by the terrain, but also faces many of the same terrain challenges we do.

6.
The backwardness of Afghanistan favours the success of jihad.
Since we're not employing coercive strategy against the people of Afghanistan I'm not sure this is relevant. However, if our vision of victory is modern and stable state, then it is.

7.
As the battlefield widens beyond the Taliban strongholds in the south, occupation forces must face increasing financial and personnel losses
. What's new here, but we need to remember that the other side is also taking casualties and is financially strained.

8. Both time and the capacity to endure losses are on the side of the Taliban, who “
do not have a ceiling to their losses, especially with regard to lives
…” That is his opinion, but I think every group/nation has a breaking point where they lose the will to fight.

9.
Suicide operations make up for the shortage of modern weapons.
Suicide attacks make for good propaganda, but realistically from a military viewpoint just how effective are they? They do not "in military terms" make up for the shortage of modern weapons; however, they're an effective political/psychological weapon.

10.
After three decades of nearly continuous warfare, Taliban fighters and leaders have the necessary experience to prevail against the occupation.
Both sides are learning, so while important three decades of warfare doesn't equate to the "necessary" experience required for victory. More than experience is required.

11.
History is also on the Taliban’s side. Despite being world powers, both the British Empire and the Soviet Union failed to conquer Afghanistan
. The Taliban didn't defeat the Soviets or the British Empire. The Taliban are a Johnny come lately in Afghanistan history.

12.
Pakistan’s support of the Taliban provides the necessary third-party refuge and supplies to any successful guerrilla struggle.
Sadly this is true, but the winds "seem" to be changing in Pakistan ever so gradually. If Pakistan quits providing support to the Taliban, would the Taliban stand even a remote chance of winning? I see a lot of talk about strategy, seems to me that the strategic center of gravity isn't in Afghanistan, but Pakistan and if we get that right the Taliban will lose.