With the announcement this past week of a new U.S. strategy on Afghanistan which involves sending 21,000 more troops, there's a feeling among some observers that Afghanistan is looking more like a futile cause, no longer the just war that was in contrast to Iraq. Some feel that there is no real possibility of success in Afghanistan, that things are too messed up that it's even turning into a Vietnam, ironically a comparison that used to be made of the Iraq occupation.
This NATO advisor/ social worker in Afghanistan thinks otherwise, providing a good overview of why setting the goals lower will hurt Afghanistan as well as the success of the U.S. mission.

The fact that the situation there is not very good isn't surprising because it's been worsening for a while, as others including British officers have warned that it could take many years, even decades to make that country stable. What is surprising, and unreasonable is when some will use this set of problems to justify ending the Afghanistan campaign because of these problems, even likening Obama to Bush.
One of the main reasons that Afghanistan is the way it is now is because it was never the focus of the U.S., given how soon it went into Iraq after ousting the Afghan Taliban regime in 2001, and the vast manpower and effort it poured into occupying Iraq while leaving just a few tens of thousands of troops to search for Osama back in Afghanistan. NATO and Canada, due to deficient manpower, equipment, expertise and national support, certainly couldn't deal with Afghanistan adequately as the U.S. hoped for.
Unfortunately time can't be turned back and the rash, impulsive actions of the Bush administration in rushing to invade two countries and succeeding in neither can't be quickly solved. It will be tough for Obama but he would do well to stick with a set strategy and think long-term and for the good of Afghanistan and not be too influenced by the whims of critics on both ideological sides at home.