America's longest war is coming to an end, at least on paper. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said this week that American troops would step back from a combat role as early as mid-2013, more than a year before the stated goal of complete withdrawal by the end of 2014.

The announcement by Panetta will be welcome news for most Americans, who have indicated in one poll after another that they no longer think the war in Afghanistan is worthwhile, and therefore the troops should come home. Bringing back the troops will also bolster President Barack Obama's popularity in an election year, no small consideration when it is by no means certain that he will be re-elected.

Thus it should come as no surprise that the decision about the troops was immediately denounced by Republican front-runner Mitt Romney, who called it profoundly wrong to signal our intentions to the enemy. But the other Republican candidates for president are split over the issue. Congressman Ron Paul will no doubt be delighted, as he has long advocated an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. Those conservatives who think the national debt is the country's biggest issue ought to be happy, as the war in Afghanistan costs the United States about $1 billion a week. On the other hand, Republicans tend to think that defense and matters of national security are their core issues, and will find Panetta's announcement deeply troubling.

In fact, there has been no visible shift in strategy by the United States, as the White House has for some time said that all combat troops should be home by the end of 2014. The only real surprise was announcing a date for the withdrawals to begin, and that the date was earlier than anticipated. Moreover, the Taliban has known for some time that the U.S. eventually would go, so Panetta's announcement should come as no surprise.

It is astonishing that so many politicians, especially Republicans, think at this late date, and after all the blood and treasure we have spent, that military victory should be our goal, and that such a victory is attainable. It isn't. Moreover, no senior U.S. military official has said that military victory is possible. Retired Gen. David Petraeus, formerly the U.S. and International Security Assistance Force commander in Afghanistan and now the CIA director, never said so. Nor did Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, his predecessor and another soldier-scholar.

The news from Afghanistan makes for dismal reading. U.S. documents first obtained by the BBC and The Times of London and later the New York Times reveal that even though more Taliban insurgents are being killed or captured than ever before, the captives indicate they believe that they will win the war. It may be just bravado, but perhaps not. The U.S. is busy preparing the way for settlement talks with the Taliban, and now Afghanistan has joined the effort.

We went in to Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden and destroy al-Qaida. It took years of effort but we finally got bin Laden, and only the remnants of al-Qaida remain along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In that sense, mission accomplished. We went after the Taliban only because it was the Taliban government that gave safe haven to bin Laden and his supporters. Unlike the al-Qaida forces in Afghanistan, the Taliban are native Afghans. Afghanistan is their home, not some foreign safe haven. However repugnant the Taliban may be, they are fighting on their own territory, and that gives them a cause we can never match.

It may be true that most Afghans don't want the Taliban back in power, but they also know the Taliban aren't going away. So accommodations are being made in a thousand different ways to prepare for the time when the U.S. and others finally leave and the Afghans are left to deal with their former masters. It may well be that the thousands of Afghans we have trained for the new Afghan army will measure up to the task ahead of them. But we can't be certain. We do know that Afghan soldiers, along with Afghan officials, make their small deals with the Taliban as insurance for the future. Under the circumstances, who can blame them?

In the wider sphere of South Asia, Pakistan too maintains its contacts with the Taliban, much to the annoyance, if not fury, of the U.S. Those contacts cost U.S. lives. But Pakistan, too, will be left to deal with Afghanistan after we are gone, and the Pakistanis will first and foremost look after their national interests.

Getting out of Afghanistan is fraught with problems. But at the end of the day, we are getting out.

Bill Stewart, a former Foreign Service officer and correspondent for Time magazine, lives in Santa Fe. He writes weekly on current affairs.