NO ONE WANTS TO ACCEPT THAT WE WON THE WAR:

For starters, it will entail a confluence of deploying satellites, drones, missiles, and aircraft from far away--to monitor terror enclaves and rain death on terrorist targets and training camps. Most likely, the U.S. will also work with its partners in the region to embed assets in suspected ISIS-K cells and other groups gaining a foothold in Afghanistan.

To be sure, it's much easier to conduct such an operation with troops and air bases inside the country. But according to multiple foreign policy experts and national security veterans, it's a viable plan. Whether it turns out to be a Hail Mary pass or a successful strategy will depend on how fast the military and intelligence assets can adapt.

William F. Wechsler, director of the Rafik Hariri Center and Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council, told me that successful over-the-horizon missions often depend on how far the units are from the targets, whether there are local partners to assist the U.S., and what nations in the region can share intelligence.

For now, the horizon may be a U.S. air base in an allied country like Qatar in the Persian Gulf, or submarines, warships, and aircraft carriers in the Arabian Sea. But launching strikes at jihadists in landlocked Afghanistan from that far away does take more time--and depends on adjacent countries allowing overflight rights. Better options would be basing forces in one of the six countries bordering Afghanistan. So far, none has agreed. The U.S. is reportedly discussing options with Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and it is already flying intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance missions from Gulf countries. Military strategists worry that more time in flight getting there will mean less time over targets for surveillance or strikes. Also, there may be a steep decline in actionable intelligence with fewer American assets in the country.

Wechsler says the U.S. is now in a race to develop even more effective counterterrorism strategies over long distances as Salafist-jihadist groups will surely seek safe havens in Afghanistan to plot new attacks. Fortunately, the U.S. has a much bigger antiterrorism infrastructure in place since the attacks 20 years ago. "We have a defense against terrorism now. We built that machine since 9/11, and it's pretty good, though not infallible," Wechsler says, pointing to a reinvigorated FBI, a new Homeland Security Department, countless security measures to protect airplanes, and technical intelligence capabilities to track phones and other communications.

Others see Afghanistan as far less dangerous than it was 20 years ago. The U.S. military has insight and intelligence deep into the hinterlands that it didn't have in 2001. Rival powers in the region--China, Russia, and Iran--all have a similar interest in pressuring the Taliban to keep terrorists off their doorsteps. Indeed, the Taliban is currently on a charm offensive, when it's not beating protestors.

Tweet   @brothersjudd