The New York Times urges withdrawal from Afghanistan: Has the Times asked all the right questions?

The New York Times Editorial Board urges that we end our military presence in Afghanistan.  See here.

It is clear to me that the Bush II Administration decision to expand hostilities outside Afghanistan was an epic disaster. The War in Iraq created the chain of events which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people and which continues to create awful instability which threatens people beyond the Middle East.

Still, there is no way to know whether attacking Iraq created a diversion which, if it had not occurred, would have enabled us to stabilize Afghanistan by permanently eliminating the Taliban. The answer is probably that we would not have been able to reach that goal, even if we had not invaded Iraq. The Times is probably correct that there is no reason to think that our continued presence will lead to peace in Afghanistan. On the other had, there is no reason to believe that our withdrawal will lead to a chain of events that will lead to peace, other than through a return to the horrors of pre-9/11 Afghanistan.

I am not convinced by the Times that withdrawal will not make the bad situation there much, much worse. Taliban control of the entire country provided the safe haven for Al Qaeda to plan the attacks of 9/11. Are we better off continuing the stand-off rather than opening the door for a similar safe haven for groups like Al Qaeda or ISIS? The Times editorial does not address this question. It is not a rhetorical question. I do not know the answer. But it is a question we must address. We cannot come up with the best answer if we ignore the dilemma.