Taabistan asked:
What do the posters think of the proposition of having between 10,000-20,000 Special Forces and nothing more in the country, a reduction in foreign aid to curb corruption and promote patient re-building, and a larger civilian presence (diplomats) that will engage in negotiations and treaties with the Taliban?
Sounds good is my first reaction. Then I thought what are the objectives? Is it in very short summary: keep AQ out of Afghanistan or build a 'new' Afghanistan?

From my faraway "armchair" your 'Four Points' suits keep AQ out. Cost benefit analysis when applied needs to factor in political sustainability at home and the financial cost. The way your plan is presented will differ which side of the Atlantic Ocean you are.

Foreign aid needs to be greatly reduced either way; the more one learns about Afghan ways the less I want to pay for it. As for more civilians that is fanciful, as proven already by the difficulties in getting them in country, let alone out of Kabul and compounds.

My understanding is that Afghans prefer their own ways an outsiders can only nudge them along. My expectation is that a smaller military presence (even smaller than 10-20k SOF), less aid, fewer civilians and less nudging would suit Afghans across the country.

Finally I do not want to see the UK, let alone the West & allies, in Afghanistan in such a format in five years time (max).