Afganistan is so very different from the two other wars that have become the definition of corruption, mismanagement and failure - Vietnam and Iraq.
Iraq was blood for oil, a rush to war without giving due credence to the UN WMD inspectors, a personal vendetta from a 95 I.Q. war mongering President and his evil Vice President, etc.
Vietnam was a product of the Cold War, where it became the front for what was basically a functional World War III.
Afganistan has no signficant oil reserves.
The 20th century cold war between East and West is over.
So the paradigm has shifted. The comparisons do not apply.
So that begs the question - Why turn up the volume on our involvement in Afganistan?
Answer: Terrorism, drug running and arms trade. We need to contain those where we can. With more troops, we can have a positive effect here. Yes we can. Or at least it's worth waiting more time and giving Obama more of a chance to see what happens...
This is still Bush's mess. This is still a smaller effort in terms of troop levels than Vietnam or Iraq.
Afganistan's major exports are opium, arms and twisted, but islam-based fundamentalism/terrorism. Maybe a fourth export would be cheap labor.
So we're there and we'll be there to try to contain and potentially get rid of these.
This a purely humantarian endeavor.
We're not motivated by oil, war profiteering, personal vendettas, etc. We're going in to bolster a government and a people that need our help. We're going there to win hearts and minds away from drugs and guns.
It may be folly. It may be that Afganistan is mired in its own mess so deeply that we just can't extricate the good from the bad there. It may be that their warlords and clans will continue to rule the countryside for generations. But if we can instill some national pride and some sense of government, if we can get rid of the terrorist training camps, if we can partner with the folks there that do want to raise the standard of living and elimate the criminal elements, we can "win" in Afganistan.
It's a tall order. That's for sure. But we're there for the right reasons. We're not there to occupy. We're not there to exploit. We're there to help Afganistan stop the bleeding and become part of the community of nations. We're there to put those awful exports they currently send, far down on their list of exports.
This will be Obama's war. He will be burdened with the decision to increase troop levels. But it's a risk worth taking.
Regarding Iraq comparisons... let's also get some perspective...
In Iraq war Part I, in the early 1990s, we had 300,000 troops there.
In Iraq war Part II, we had well over 100,000 troops there.
We're talking about maybe a total of 50,000 troops in Afganistan with a 3 year exit strategy.
We're also still TALKING ABOUT A WAR THAT GW BUSH STARTED. THE WAR WAS ON HIS DIME FOR THE BETTER PART OF BUSH'S PRESIDENCY. That's the truth. Obama has only been commander in chief of this effort since January 2009. 10 months. 10 months vs. Bush/Cheney's 7 years.
Let's give Obama a chance here.