Great historical analysis, but...

"The Limited Contingent maintained relatively little force among the rural population in Afghanistan at any time--most of its efforts were focused on securing the lines of communication and the major cities. Most Afghans encountered the Soviets only through the Limited Contingent's deliberate terrorist campaign, waged both from the air and from the ground.

For all of these reasons, there is absolutely no basis for assessing that an increased ISAF/US military presence along the lines being considered will result in some kind of "tipping point" at which local Afghans turn against us because they see us as a Soviet-style occupation force."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=16854&R=162C61497D

The Soviets were amazingly inept and brutal, which united the countryside against them. Can't be argued. However, there is no guarantee that our better-focused efforts undertaken by better-trained-and-equipped troops will lead to an outcome that is worth the investment associated with committing those troops to AFG for an extended period of time.  

The Taliban continues to gain (and claim) legitimacy because they offer a less corrupt alternative to the AFG government at the local level (where it matters in AFG). While the national government was weakened by its association with the brutal Soviet occupation force in the 80s, the current government's corruption and incompetence weakens NATO through its association. If more foreign troops show up and locals don't see an improvement in governance, just more violence, we could see a larger shift in support toward the Taliban. 

Posted via email from Team Frosick