The Editors at NRO are smart people, and I can't think of any ulterior motive they would have supporting a continued effort in Afghanistan. Obviously, they really believe that staying longer and fighting harder in Afghanistan will eventually create a situation in which we can leave the country in relative stability free from Taliban and al Qaeda control, and the danger of terrorists getting hold of Pakistan's weapons will be dealt with. Or, do they believe, like McCain believes, that we need a permanent base in Afghanistan?
That has to be the case, because only with a permanent base can we influence events, but even then, a base will be a constant source of attacks and high costs. Having bases in Germany and Japan after WWII was much different from a base in Afghanistan. The people in the region are not as industrious and civilized as the Germans and Japanese. The Japanese were not as civilized and reasonable as the Germans, but the people of Afghanistan are dangerously ignorant and religiously fanatic, for the most part. I don't know how we could control a base in that region without having constant armed conflicts, and at some point the Arab League, Russia and China would protest in the UN our presence there.
I just don't understand NRO. The only other possible reason I can think of for Americans to support a continued effort is that we want to save face. This is a dangerous reason to stay in the war, and it puts troops at risk for political reasons. There are ways to leave and declare victory, and there are ways to leave without it turning into another Viet-Nam -- these are weak rationalizations. With the weapons technology we have now, we can control the small groups of Taliban and al Qaeda from lounge chairs on a beach. The reality is that our enemies are scattered and rag-tag, but they can make us look foolish if we continue to think foolishly. Let's find a way out, get out, and never look back.