You remember the Bader Meinhoff Gang?
There is another difference, that with the French we have a cultural compatibility, so no matter how hostile to us they might become, chances are we can talk it over.
I'll remember that next time they try to collapse our currency while we are bailing them out of a post-colonial tussle.
With the Taliban govenrment there is virtually nothing we can talk over.
First of all, let's make one thing clear: the Taleban are not a government recognized by the US. That said...
What Taleban? (See? We agree!) :-)
Our relationship with the post-war (and, I expect, post-occupation) Afghani government will be primarily based on our continuing military threat to them and their obligation to root out terrorists on our behalf.
What Occupation? (See? We disagree.)
Tell me how many functioning empires (by your definition) we have left on this planet? No thank you. I am an inter-nationalist, not a globalist. A vote is meaningless unless a government can do as bidden by its citizens. There is no citizen sovereignty without national sovereignty. I prefer to concentrate upon reinstating what is left of ours. Within the constraints that limit the government or citizens of another nation from harming us or ours, let them be, no matter how barbarous they choose to be within their borders. Limitless projection of suzerainty is a means destructive to our national purpose of securing the unalienable rights of sovereign citizens. Let our example of respect for sovereignty AND unalienable rights at home be the competitive inducement (and financial means) that motivates the citizens of other nations to throw off their yokes. We can persuade; we must not coerce. (How do you conquer someone in the name of freedom?) Should that time come, we might then be able to help and they willing to accept it.
As of now, you have still to address my assertion that to project such power with our military in its present condition, in the manner as you suggest, is a pyrrhic objective in the name of a chimeral goal. It would take 5-7 YEARS to drop our domestic programs and commit our resources to national defense as you suggest even if that were a politically realistic goal (which it is obviously not). You also have yet to address my concern that to occupy Afganistan is so provocative to both Chinese and Russian interests as to drive them toward each other as a common foe against a consequently over-extended and obviously bellicose enemy.
In short, both your goal and means are IMHO disastrous policy. I want no part of them.
American government has no choice but to curb its domestic role and enhance its commitments in the Middle East. The energies of the socialist left will from now on be directed to empire maintenance overseas. It won't happen overnight, but the empire-building dynamic will be driving the political debate in the US and in Europe, just like the domestic role of government was driving the political debate since Roosevelt. The centers of imperial power, such as Russia, China, and ourselves, will be cooperating in the effort in order to avoid superpower conflicts.