Conservative commentator George Will's column today has ignited much talk because he writes that it's time for U.S. forces to leave Afghanistan — and not the time to be sending more military personnel there:

Counterinsurgency theory concerning the time and the ratio of forces required to protect the population indicates that, nationwide, Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable.

So, instead, forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan, a nation that actually matters.

Express your opinion:

For NPR's coverage of events in Afghanistan, click here.

Update at 10:55 a.m. ET. Over at Time's Swampland blog, Joe Klein writes that:

Will's prescription is premature. We have to see what, if anything, emerges from the Afghan election. We have to see what, if any, impact the augmented U.S. troops — who are still arriving — have on the fight. We have to see what, if any, impact the augmented non-military component — the increased aid, the additional aid workers and economic development specialists — have on Afghanistan. ...

The war against the al-Qaida leadership is necessary; I'm not sure that the best way to fight that war is to try to prop up a hopelessly corrupt government in Afghanistan. As I said, I'm not ready to concede that George Will is right — but the president has to consider the possibility that Will is ... and make a decision about how to proceed in the next few months.