"I'm looking for a leader who's not going to play into a war-weary public."

Thus spoke Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) in response to Newt Gingrich, who is no longer sure America has "the willpower or the capacity to do the things you have to do to fundamentally change" Afghanistan. That's not all Graham said,

"We've got enough people in politics who are playing the polls and blowing with the wind…I'm not interested in nominating someone who doesn't understand the strategic importance of Afghanistan. I'm not interested in being in a party that can't support a general who's got a good plan to withdraw. I have no desire of being the isolationist party."

For more occupation flop sweat, see Bruce Riedel and Michael O'Hanlon's op-ed in Foreign Policy, titled "Mission Incomplete": 

[T]here are reasons for observers to have doubts about the future of the Afghanistan mission. But this is far from a quagmire: Even without further accelerations of the U.S. troop drawdown, there is a clear campaign plan for reducing the U.S. role and presence over the next 30 months. This will happen, for better or worse—nobody should fear an unending military commitment in Afghanistan.

And then, on page two of the very same op-ed: 

Even after 2014, the Afghan government will still need international support. Perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 foreign troops will be needed in Afghanistan to help with training, mentoring, air support, special operations, and logistics. If the United States cannot work out a deal on this matter now with Kabul, it should simply keep trying next year, after the U.S. presidential race.

 What does "unending" mean, again?