On Tuesday evening, US President Barack Obama will finally announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan.After months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce an escalation of US presence across the Durand Line by more than 30,000 troops. This represents a 50 per cent increase over the 68,000 troops already fighting in Afghanistan.
According to Albert bender it will not good for the president To do so, it would be a huge mistake that could, in effect, destroy his presidency in the same way that Lyndon Johnson's was ruined by sending more troops into Vietnam.The similarities between the war Obama inherited from George W. Bush and the conflictJohnson inherited from John Kennedy are startling. But, Obama has not made LBJ's mistakes; hopefully, he won't.Obama needs to focus on an exit strategy for the following practical and moral reasons.
First, there is no military solution; U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine holds that at least 400,000 troops are needed to even stand a chance of a military win.Currently, the entire U.S. military stands at 548,000 soldiers. The American public would not stand for such a huge numerical commitment to Afghanistan.

Second, the claim that winning in Afghanistan is tied to U.S. security is pure nonsense. Al-Qaida does not need a geographic base to conduct terrorist acts. The 9/11 plot was organized out of Hamburg, Germany.Al-Qaida does not need a geographic headquarters; all it requires are committed,
conspiratorial martyrs just about anywhere in the world.
Indeed, if a land base was the issue, then the U.S. should invade Germany.
Third, with more than $65 billion annually being expended on the Afghan war, any plans by Obama to significantly improve the American economy would have to be scuttled the same as LBJ's hopes for a "Great Society" were destroyed by the Vietnam War. Any escalation by Obama would devour his efforts to lift America out its economic malaise.

Fourth, it is simply morally wrong for the U.S. to remain in Afghanistan. America is there for no more than imperialist exploitation. U.S. corporate interests want economic control of oil and gas resources in Western Asia. The claims of fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban are
simply pretexts for the war.As for a comprehensive exit strategy, Obama should focus on regional diplomacy, peacemaking and collaborating with international efforts for economic and social development.Obama must
be mindful of the concept of "self-determination"; the Afghans have a right to chart their own course. The country cannot be made into even a remote facsimile of the U.S.There is no other viable road than an exit strategy, for if the U.S. chooses to continue the military option, there lies ahead only further carnage for Americans and Afghans, the further squandering of U.S. resources and bloodshed for the entire region.
Simply U.S. cannot “win” the war in Afghanistan. It was losing the war when
Barack Obama took office. In March 2009, President Obama ordered another 30,000 troops. Rather than reverse the outcome, the U.S. and NATO effort lost even more ground. Now President Obama has ordered another 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.Attempting to deflect growing opposition to the announcement of his dramatic escalation of
the war in Afghanistan, President Obama is simultaneously claiming that U.S. troops will start to be withdrawn in July 2011.

The Generals and Admirals, and now the White House, are unwilling to accept responsibility for a military setback.

The President knows they cannot win and yet is unwilling to leave.
Since no leader is willing to take responsibility, they are instead sending thousands more to their deaths.
Bush and Cheney ordered the invasion thinking it would be easy going. They thought Iraq would be easy, too. They were going to wipe out the governments in Iran, Syria and North Korea. This colonial-type fantasy, nourished by “great nation” arrogance and the acquiescence of a caste of corrupt politicians in Congress, set the stage for the current catastrophe of a war without end.
After eight years of war, more than 140 armed insurgent groups of Afghans now exist as a response to the invasion and they control large parts of the country. The people in Afghanistan perceive the occupation as a colonial-type takeover of their country. September
11 was a pretext, but there were no Afghans or Iraqis who hijacked the planes. The people of Afghanistan, like the people in Vietnam, will never accept foreign military occupation in their country.
In the 1968 election Nixon ran on a platform of a “secret peace plan” for Vietnam. In reality, Nixon’s “peace plan” meant more bombing of Vietnam, expansion of the war into
Cambodia, and “Vietnamization” – the building up of the South Vietnamese puppet army under the direction of U.S. “ad visors.” The puppet army was supposed to do the fighting and dying in the place of U.S. troops in an increasingly unpopular war.The new plan for Afghanistan calls for more bombing and drone attacks, and “Afghanization” – the building up of a puppet Afghan army trained and led by U.S. commanders. This follows
President Obama's escalation of massive bombing of the people of Pakistan.

American government is not telling truth to there people from its first day of war,American congressman David obey would finance the war in Afghanistan by imposing a tax on the public. The idea is yet another in a line of gimmicky populist measures that are sprouting like dandelions this political season, and it has garnered the support of apparently sensible people. But it has little to recommend it.One of the Economist’s bloggers says “it’s a very bad idea to get involved in a long, grueling, expensive war without explaining to the American people how much they will have to sacrifice, and securing their support.” But the War Tax doesn’t explain anything and, as the author says elsewhere, would only reduce their support for the war. The Economist cites
Spencer Ackerman who notes “the military lament that only a select and small proportion of the country is actually at war.” But soldiers volunteer for service; no one is required to join the military. If the argument were that soldiers are underpaid and should have higher wages, or that the dependents of soldiers who are killed should receive more generous benefits, it would be possible to sympathize. The only effect of the war tax would be to
raise revenues for the government, which could use them for additional spending or to pay down the debt. The war will go on, however the revenues are used.It is possible that the Afghanistan War is a bad idea; if so, the remedy is to end the war, not to raise taxes. If it is a good idea, the benefits will accrue to the inhabitants of the future, who will be protected from terrorists and other baddies, not us. We perform a benefit for the future, and we charge them for our costs; what is there to object to?

Deficit spending for what is in effect a capital investment—as opposed to spending oncurrent consumption—is justified. If the War Tax is imposed, we simply transfer additional
wealth from ourselves—including the soldiers and others already making the sacrifices—to the future.Just as the war must be evaluated on its own merits, so must taxation. If the real goal of the tax is to reduce the deficit, that’s fine; just don’t call it a “war tax” (as long as we are explaining things to the American people); call it a “tax.” If, as many economists believe, now is the time for further stimulus; a tax is a bad idea. We’ll have to borrow even more to offset the demand-suppressing effects of the tax. Whatever the case, the possibly good fiscal reasons for raising taxes are independent of the war in Afghanistan.

At a time of deep economic crisis, with tens of millions out of work and losing their homes, the cost of the wars and occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq is already running at over $225 billion per year or $1.2 billion every two days. Escalating the war will escalate that cost.
real change comes from below. It comes from the millions who are suffering from unemployment, foreclosure, evictions and poverty. It comes from the young people who are being driven from college because of soaring tuition. The children of working-class families are the ones who do the bleeding and the killing, and they are told they do it for “national security.”