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.

This looks to be the biggest blow to China's reputation in regards to holding this year's Olympics Games. Steven Spielberg, the famous director has quit his role as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics because of his differences towards China's relationship with Sudan, which has been accused of supporting genocide in Darfur. While this seems a brave move full of integrity by Spielberg, one wonders whether criticism of China is getting out of hand. The criticism, especially those made by American actress Mia Farrow including at one point saying in a Wall Street Journal editorial that Spielberg risked becoming seen as a latter-day version of a film director who collaborated with the Nazis to become a "chief propagandist" for them, is full of ridiculous hyberbole. To compare China to the Nazis of WWII is a foolish claim that has no substance. Similarly, accusations of China "underwriting" genocide are also very foolish and verge on the point of discrimination and slander. The main reason I believe so has to do with looking at intentions, specifically China's own. Is China selling arms and buying oil from Sudan because China wants to support or encourage atrocities against the Darfurians? No, I really do not think so. The main purpose of China conducting economic relations with Sudan and other not so benevolent regimes is for its own economic gain and to guarantee energy supplies which are especially needed for China's giant energy needs.
I do think that China needs to be more aware of the consequences however, such as the negative perceptions when it does business with regimes like Sudan's, and has to realize how with a wider world profile, there is also an accompanying responsibility. Or is it? I mean, judging from certain powers such as the US and the UK, doing business with shady regimes and rulers has been a common practice. Nevertheless China does need to show more recognition of the tremendous suffering being inflicted in Darfur by Sudanese government-supported forces,and should do all that it can to influence the government to somehow stop or cut down on such actions. But the world, especially supposedly nice, caring activists like Farrow need to realise that the world is a complicated place and that focusing on China as such an evil villain is naive, foolish and erroneous.