Which Is Best Military Strategy For Afghanistan?

Choice #1 The Outside the Wire Strategy: The goal here is to mix with the people to win their hearts and minds so that more Afghanis will be supporters of the Karzai government and less will be supporters of the Taliban. To do this, the main objective is to preserve the lives of Afghanis, to build roads for them, and schools and sewers, and wells, and hospitals, and community kitchens, and recreation areas. What we are seeking is a peaceful and civilized Afghanistan that treats all citizens according to written law, that respects women, that has free and fair elections, and that educates it children well.
Choice #2 The Inside the Wire Strategy — Our goal here is to disrupt any activity that could result in harm to US citizens in the USA. This means killing all persons engaged in above ground military training. It means destroying all weapons, explosives, poisons, and planning centers. It means killing all terrorist leaders. This is done from inside the wire at the Bagram Airfield, mainly by predator strikes. These strikes are guided by the National Reconaissance Office using extensive viewing and analysis both of which are skills we could develop. No human intelligence is used, so there’s no need for CIA or SEAL’s in country. Targets are found by overflights, Keyhole imaging, LANDSAT imaging, and sigint analysis. The theory is that anything or anybody in Afghanistan who could harm the USA would need to have at least some of their operations above ground. If they had to train or build significant weapons underground, there would still be above ground signs of where operations are being conducted. Thermobaric (cave buster bombs) can be dropped by A-10′s operating out of Bagram. All UAV’s can be operated from behind the wire at Bagram. This plan serves the interests of the taxpayers and citizens of USA by actually helping to improve their security by impeding and frustrating and killing real threats as they appear and become known in Afghanistan. This Whack-A-Mole approach does not have an exit strategy. It could go on for 50 years or more. It would entail approximately zero casualties for USA, and comparatively low costs, not more than $2 billion per year in country, and an additional $1 Billion per year to upgrade the skill sets of the NRO, particularly for overhead view analysis, and to hire staff to do the targeting work.
Benefits of Choice #1 Many DOD contractors make a lot of money
Drawbacks: Many US soldiers lose their lives
No significant enhancement of security for taxpayers and citizens in USA
Huge annual costs
Benefits of Choice #2 It’s cheaper, it spares US lives, it is effective in enhancing security of US taxpayers and citizens in USA. It is highly likely that after 15 or 20 years the Taliban and Al Qaida will just give up in Afghanistan. They will look for another place and move their operations there, as will we. In 50 years they will give up completely. They can’t spare the manpower or the cash. The only thing they really can do well is take potshots at US soldiers wandering around in remote villages in the highlands of back country Afghanistan. Once we stop playing to their strength, and play to their weakness (resource shortages), we are bound to win, although it won’t be quick.
Drawbacks: No hearts and minds are won
Not a very good Social Services Program for the Afghani people
The Taliban vs Karzai groups fight it out
Afghanistan never becomes a civilized nation
The Taliban always has some training camps in Afghanistan as does Al Qaida (but then they become a certain size they are vaporized).
One of these Strategies probably serves the interests of taxpayers and citizens in USA better than the other.
Do you know which one?
What do you think?