Um, what if it is one or the other?
Every possible consensual government in Afghanistan would want the US and other westerners out, and for the government to be pro-Islam.
The PC pretense that terrorism is only endorsed by tiny tyrannical minorities has some truth in Iraq or Pakistan (where, actually, terrorists are unpopular because they won't stick to killing westerners or Jews, rather than as such). But there is little sign of that in Afghanistan.
Is our bottom line that they Afghan people get whatever they want, even if it happens to be "us dead", or is our bottom line that we will defeat terrorists, regardless of how popular they are? If the second, then we ought to be more realistic about governments in Afghanistan. That they we consenual would be nice, if readily achievable along with our other objectives. But that they refrain from attacking us and do attack terrorists, in actually our bottom line.
We should be entirely clear - that means large portions of the Afghan population and probably clear majorities of it, will always view the governments we can live with as traitors and lackies of the west.
Anyone think that Obama has the stones to see a war like that through to the end? I sure don't. And if not, then why exactly are we asking young Americans to get killed over there?
The Taliban are not popular, and it's largely confined to the Pushtuns/Pashtu, a minorty, albeit the largest minority.