Great individual warriors will be utterly destroyed by mediocre warriors with good teamwork.
In any battle, there is no "silver bullet" or "superweapon" that cause you to win. What there is, on the other hand, is the RIGHT MIX of weapons and individuals that will set conditions for victory.
If simply having superior weapons, training, and tactics were all it took to win a war Vietnam would be a prosperous Democracy and Afghanistan would be a Soviet Protectorate State. So what are the conditions?
Well, if you want to win as the underdog you need a LOT of bodies to throw into the meat grinder. The Muslim world is awash with underemployed young men who embrace a culture of self sacrifice. Which is why you don't see Jewish or Canadian suicide bombers, but rather Muslim men from 17-45 who conduct most of the terror attacks. Conversely this was the same sort of population that fought the Soviets as mujahadeen. The Vietnamese took around 2 million casualties, and probably could have taken a million more.
My point is that a superpower that kills a lot of people can still lose the war. How did Ghandi bring about freedom for India? By changing public opinion, seizing the right moment to help the British public latch on to the "post imperial" though process that accompanied the breakup of the empire.
The right mix of weapons, the right mix of propaganda, the right mix of resistance. The Taliban aren't fighting to win here in Afghanistan, they are fighting to remain relevant. If we allow them to remain relevant they will eventually win. The question is what is the right mix for Coalition Forces to counter that and keep this place from turning back into a theocratic hell hole?