You got another solution?
Bombing cities on the other side of the world is not going to convince the inhabitants that your culture is better or more "moral". Let's try not doing that for a change.
Who cares what the population wants if the taliban are the only game in town with guns?
Poli and Military Science fun fact: a dictator will retain power until his support drops below 20%, because of coordination issues. You need more then a handful of people to over-throwe the government, and if each one you talk to adds a 25% chance of snitching you're screwed. The Taliban have that 20%, and since they're willing to die for their cause (like ISIS in Northern Iraq, they took Kunduz with a much smaller force then the government, largely because nobody on the government side was willing to risk their lives), they win the Endmic Warfare-types battles that dominate Afghanistan.
stoning rape victims for adultery in God's name
I'm atheist and believe that all governments based on religion are the truest evil in the world. I'd like to see the Muslim extremists go too. That isn't likely to happen in my lifetime. At any rate, groups like the Taliban cannot keep returning unless they have support from the people around them. Afghanistan is not the U.S.
Now, what I would advocate for is to open our borders to refugees running from the wars we've started.
Your use of ad hominems is immature.
I'd like a lot more open immigration policy myself. But that's less likely then a stable Afghanistan with no Sharia Law*. Right now the GOP is freaking out that Catholics from Mexico might vote for a welfare state the size of the one that Mexico tries to have (they have universal health care, and it doesn't work too well because they can't afford it), how do you think they'd react to semi-literate Muslims who all have cousins in the Taliban?
*Strictly speaking we have some elements of Sharia law. If two Muslims sue each-other, and want to use Islamic Law to settle the dispute, they can hire a Sharia arbitrator, and we can't stop them.