Here we go again; more interventionist death-dealing, this time brought to you by that die-hard opponent of unnecessary wars, Barack Obama. The war in Afghanistan is all but lost, and will be no less lost with the processing of more American lives though this Muslim extremist meatgrinder. 

But our new president, perhaps in fulfillment of his campaign promise (or for God only knows whatever reason), has decided to play a dangerous game of switcheroo with the lives of our Americans soldiers.

Mr.Obama is ready to add up to 30,000 troops into Afghanistan over the next two years, a near doubling of the current American force there of about 31,000.

The outlines of the military plan for Iraq, presented to Mr. Obama in December, envisioned withdrawing of only two brigades, or some 7,000 to 8,000 troops over the next six months. But now military commanders are drawing up renewed plans for a faster withdrawal of American troops, in anticipation that President Obama will reject current proposals as 'too slow'.

But why, all of a sudden has Mr. Obama decided to get antsy about Afghanistan?. What is pertinent here, (and may be already becoming apparent) is Mr. Obama's complete lack of military knowledge, and the frightening thought of him playing general without any battlefield experience. And now is not the time to play political maestro in such a dangerous theater of war.

. 

War in Afghanistan is a pointless war. If Russia were there for almost 10 years with no victory strategy, then what makes Obama think we can do any better?. Osama Bin Laden may be there, but who really knows for sure where he is? And with all our great intelligence, why haven't we caught him by now? 

And what is there to gain there? Does it actually affect us one way or the other whether the warlords or the Taliban run that godforsaken country? Unlike Iraq, There are no geopolitical gains to be made there, unless the U.S. wants to wrest control of the poppy seed industry.

This Afghan war expansion is remarkably parallel to the beginning of the JFK administration. A newly-elected Mr. Kennedy, anxious to prove his toughness, was suckered by the Pentagon into entering an endless guerrilla war in Vietnam on a terrain that was not favorable to a conventional military power.  And is this expansion not a chilling deja' vu similarity?

But not surprisingly, Mr. Obama has yet to make clear his overall goals beyond calling for more forces, money and diplomacy in an increasingly violent, ungovernable country. Obama inherits the biggest financial crisis since the 30's, so can anyone give a rational explanation as to why he would want to drain the treasury further with billions for an escalated war in Afghanistan?

Is Obama playing war games just for the sake of pleasing his left? Why fire up Afghanistan before the job in Iraq is finished? Does Obama play chess with our troops just to appear as though "he's the military man" in deference to his critics on the right? This is a troublesome thought indeed.

Senior military officers have expressed uneasiness about a quick withdrawal from Iraq ,and are unclear at this point about Mr. Obama’s overall strategy. This begs the question ...Mr Obama, what's goin' on? Do you yourself even have any idea?

If he isn't careful (or prudent), escalating the Afghan theater may prove to be a horror movie for Obama far worse than the Iraq war was for Bush. And one cannot ignore the obvious camparisons of the two presidents, neither of which ever experienced the fright of combat, acting like it's some sort of adventure; when in reality, any veteran will always tell you; war is hell! 

And Afghanistan is an unwinnable hell hole that will make Vietnam look tame in comparison.

Perhaps it's time for President Obama to have our soldiers on his mind instead of playing war games. Our American soldiers could be guarding OUR southwestern borders, patrolling our coasts, and actually defending us from terrorist attacks-- instead of dying halfway around the world while trying to impose American-style democracy on some lawless Muslim country.

Violence has reached record levels this year, and Afghanistan is now considered a deadlier battlefield than Iraq, where the Taliban have the "home field" advantage.

And what of the numbers? Obama's surge of 30,000 troops--into a country the size of Texas, with hostile tribes and warlords lurking in every province-- is a mere military spit in the ocean. Even 130, 0000 would be inviting only a longer war of attrition, similar to the Vietnam fiasco.

As of now, it cannot be ignored-- the parallels between 'Nam and Afghanistan are starkly evident. More buildup is like pouring money down a rat hole, with no apparent strategy of how to win. It is much more than a question of how fast you can add troops; it includes calculating how much risk you are willing to take, with no apparent goal other than, what---killing the enemy?

 This Afghan war he wants to escalate is both culturally, politically, and militarily unwinnable.

But Obama chooses to play professor backwards. He's abandoning completion of the already-won war in Iraq for political reasons, and chooses to fight the unwinnable one in Afghanistan for the vague possibility of hunting down Bin Laden. 

But finding Bin-Ladin will be like finding the cure for cancer: we know he's out there, but where should we look? Osama fought the Russians for a decade in Afghanistan as a Mujahadi freedom fighter, and knows of thousands of secret hiding places. And the man seems immune from betrayal.

Unlike Iraq, the Afghan terrain is like fighting on the moon--forbidding, and it nullifies all possible U.S. advantages such as armor, or the fast mobility of the humvees. The U.S. soldiers, exposed down below on narrow mountain passages, have no place to hide , while the enemy above remains invisible. Classic military flanking maneuvers have little chance of success.

If Obama had the analytical experience of a war veteran commander in chief, he'd realize that the best way to escalate would be not more ground forces, but adding more air forces-- the drones, always hovering menacingly  from above. These are the only way to countermand the height advantage of the enemy Taliban fighters, who know every square inch of the battle terrain.

But with vast new numbers of airborne spy drones patrolling, the Taliban would be forced to stay in perpetual cover, and give a huge strategic advantage over to our guys on the ground. "Death from above" would be a constant threat to the enemy and would save American troops the risk of-search and destroy missions through unfamiliar terrain.

And while were talking strategy, how’s this for a tactic--night vision goggles! Why not use the one technological advantage that could really checkmate the enemy? If the U.S. was the only side who wore them and only moved at night--- then why not do it? The Taliban would be faced with hiding by day from the drones, and forced to keep a defensive posture at night from Americans who can see them, but remain nearly invisible by night themselves.

The Afghan theatre is the total opposite of the Iraqi urban conflict.  Political settlement in Afghanistan is the only possible victory, because once troops are withdrawn, the same problem emerges: the Taliban snakes will slither again out from under their rocks, and resume their bullying posture of religious extremism.

Obama should understand that the history of Afghanistan is unique;  the expansive countryside is so geographically isolated by mountains, it is a land of a thousand territories. There can be no lasting military victory

President Obama is going to inherit the problem the Russians had roughly 25 years ago during the Soviet jihad. You cannot tame the people in this craggy, hostile country where the only rule of law is the bribe given to each of the thousand of local warlords that change sides accordingly.

.

But Obama must make good his political promises. And so, next January 21, he will huff and puff mightily away in his inaugural speech..."We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority,"

Yes, and in so doing, thousands of additional American troops are likely to perish, far more  than the 4,000 American casualties suffered in Iraq. But at least we're about to become victorious there, while Afghanistan, by all accounts of history, is unwinnable.

No nation has ever brought the Afghanis to their knees.

From Alexander the Great in 338 B.C. to the USSR in 1980, Afghanistan is always the 'invaders' graveyard.

And Obama is only fooling himself  to think the U.S. is an exception.