The right course means establishing either an occupation regime or a puppet government that sees as its central function enforcement of basic rights...
I agree. A vacuum in that region would create much more trouble than the cost of maintaining a puppet government.
To me what the two of you have articulated is a contradiction in terms: a policy that can only be called paradoxical. There is a distinction between finding a) a leader of the Afgan people who will inculcate the rule of law and pursue Afgani national interests with the support of his people while refusing to foment international terrorism and b) a puppet government with policies dictated remotely having more to do with our interests than the local cultural, physical, and economic realities. Really, what you are proposing is fascism. The policy will surely backfire for its transparency as such will be apparent to every Afgani citizen for which they would happily fight. That "low maintenance" government would therefore be hardly that and instead produce more of the same.
It is also a policy that is subject to the vageries of partisan whim here in the US. I seriously doubt that your apparent enthusiasm for puppet governments would be so were Bubba still the pres. That moment of circumspection you noticed is exactly why yours is a disastrous policy. We must learn to adhere to principle and respect sovereignty or we will find ourselves where there is none and our own votes are meaningless.
There is no contradiction in the proposal outlined. Support of the resistance is necessary for the removal of Bin Laden. But, they are not sufficient for stabilization in the region. Your (a) is not possible without first (b).