The dumbest thing Americans could do is rush to Afghanistan with all the high-tech gizmos thinking it'll be a walkover. It will not. With sensible tactics you can prevail, but the Taliban are no pushover. Just as in Vietnam, this would be help to understand the enemy and the terrain first.
Theres not much to bomb in Afghanistan. Bin Laden and his guards have already shown how they can stay a few steps ahead of the Americans. They did so in 1999 during the cruise missile hits, which at best killed some adolescent kids training to be terrorists. Sending a fleet of B-52s to carpet bomb Afghanistan won't make any difference, other than to change the topological landscape a bit.
The Taliban originated from the ultra-orthodox Wahaabi-Deobandi madrassas (theological schools) in Pakistan, and retain very strong ties with fundamentalist Pakistani political parties as well as the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency. Like in 1999 they would be only to happy to inform Bin Laden about the status of US activities from their country.
Neither the strong fundamentalist side of the Pakistani army, their right-wing political parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami nor the ISI would want to destroy the Taliban, who are just a tool in their hands. It gives them the mercenaries they need to pass off as 'freedom fighters' to fight India in Kashmir. Bin Laden's links with the mercenaries in Kashmir are well known. Also, as in the 1999 Kargil war, the Afghanis would be supported by Pakistani armymen in mufti.
There is no real border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, as far as the terrorists are concerned. Considering the massive amount of US-donated weaponry available in cities on the Pak-Afghan border like Peshawar and Quetta, it would be easy for Taliban to maintain logistics in a guerilla battle with the US.
Also, the Afghans are warriors, and have been fiercely protective of their territory since Alexander's failed invasion. The British tried and failed. More recently the Russians tried, with similar results. Bin Ladens troops are not only familiar with the terrain but are also very well armed, ironically by Washington. A ground battle would wreak a costly toll on American troops and the body-bag factor would soon come into the picture, tying the hands of the military like it did in Vietnam.
For the last decade India has been fighting a low-intensity war against these same militants in Kashmir, who are indoctrinated and trained in the madrassas before being armed and sent into Kashmir under Pakistani artillery cover. As a coincidence, its just come to the attention of the Indian press that fighting in Kashmir has abruptly come to a near standstill in the last couple of days. No prizes for guessing where the terrorists have gone.
The US won't find it easy. You can't attack from Iran. The Central Asian countries too haven't agreed. To attack from Pakistan means having watch your back all the while, because the very same militants who you'll face in Afghanistan are bred in Pakistan, and they'll be only to happy to keep Bin Laden well informed, if not actually ambush the Americans there.
Remember Ramzi Ahmed Yousuf (the mastermind of the 1993 WTC attack) is one of these Pakistani terrorists, and the US has lost CIA men to ambushes in Pakistan in the 1990s. If this happens again, you'll find yourself fighting Pakistan as well.
Its not going to be an easy battle. Bush has, to his credit, said so too. The Indian defence establishment is already taking measures to handle things when the fighting spills over into India as well. With ten years of experience at successfully hitting back at the terrorists, they know how to handle them.
The only way to end the menace of these Islamic mercenaries is to destroy their roots, i.e., the madrassas in Pakistan/Afghanistan. This is something India has not been able to do, since it would mean a full scale war on Pakistan. If you simply flatten the terrorists in Afghanistan you're making a big mistake, because like a tree whose branches have been trimmed they'll grow again from their roots next season.