Why U.S. Could Opt For 'Zero Option' In Afghanistan --- When the United States first suggested that all options would be considered when it came to a long-term security agreement with Afghanistan -- including leaving no U.S. forces on the ground after 2014 -- it was seen as bluster. -- But as talks drag on, the "zero option" is beginning to look increasingly realistic. -- David Young, a civilian adviser to NATO in eastern Afghanistan and an adjunct fellow at the American Security Project in Washington, says convincing the U.S. public of the need for continued military engagement beyond 2014 will be a tough sell. -- "If the Afghan economy and Afghan security forces can't stay afloat on their own now, then another five years or 10 years certainly won't be able to do it -- that's the rationale," Young says. "We've pumped everything we can into this situation and into this country, and if this doesn't do it then nothing will." -- The growing unpopularity of the Afghan war largely stems from financial concerns in the United States. -- "These days in Washington, the mention of Afghanistan makes people sigh deeply," Smith says. "There is profound donor fatigue. Afghans don't realize how much the West would love an excuse to pull out and walk away. It would save billions of dollars a year for America at a time when America is hurting for cash." - More, Frud Bezhan - rferl.org