Under the pretext of responding to the September 11, 2001, attacks in America, the United States and Great Britain invaded Afghanistan on October 7, 2001, under the banner of Operation Enduring Freedom. President Bush 43 told the American people that the US strikes were "... designed to disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and to attack the military capability of the Taliban regime ... As we strike military targets, we will also drop food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan ..."

    During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to immediately withdraw troops from Iraq in order to bolster the forces in Afghanistan in order to defeat the Taliban and al-Qaeda. "It's time to refocus our attention on the war we have to win in Afghanistan." This approach was taken in order to placate the anti-Iraq war contingent of the American electorate on the left while not leaving candidate Obama vulnerable to the "soft on defense" hawkish argument from the right. As a campaign tactic, this proved to be successful. As American foreign policy, this is proving to be one of the greatest miscalculations President Obama has made. Could Afghanistan become President Obama's Vietnam?

    President Obama has taken ownership of this war and now calls this a "war of necessity" that is fundamental to the "defense of our people." In order to convince the American people that more troops are necessary to achieve the desired result, the president says as President Bush 43 said, the mission is to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda and its extremist allies".

    What may really be at play here is an attempt to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, thereby providing stability in the region that in the long run could provide stability for its nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan. A destabilized Afghanistan that leads to an unstable nuclear Pakistan could have grave results in India and other countries as well. Attacking "al-Qaeda and its extremist allies" is an easier sell to the American people than nation building and the longer term geopolitical strategy of establishing stability in Central Asia.

    The problem with this logic or plan is that it does not appear to be working. The increase of American and coalition forces seems to be inciting resistance in many areas of this region, not quelling it. Many Afghan's view the American and coalition forces as invaders and are compelled on a tribal and nationalist level to resist. A combination of organized resistance by Taliban forces coupled with a growing nationalist/tribal resistance will only make defeating the opposition more difficult.

    According to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan, "... is serious and it is deteriorating ... the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, and more sophisticated, in their tactics ..." To this end, August has been the deadliest month to date for American troops, with 51 dead. According to the Defense Department, 800 members of the US military have died in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan as a result of Operation Enduring Freedom.

    The top American commander in the region, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, continues to work on a major war strategy review and has yet to request additional troops above those already added by President Obama. There is speculation that thousands more troops will soon be added. Since taking office, President Obama has sent an additional 21,000 US troops to Afghanistan for a total of 68,000 in country, well below what the commanders need to "win in Afghanistan."

    So far, because so many Americans have been focused on the economy, health care, and other domestic issues, Afghanistan has not been the focal point of their interest. This is slowly beginning to change as more conservatives and progressives alike are beginning to compare the military escalation in Afghanistan with the failure in Vietnam.

    The similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam may be more perceived than real, but the hearts and minds of the people can prove to be more powerful than military realities. Col. Henry Summers, a military historian, once said to a Vietnamese counterpart, "You never defeated the US in the field." To which the counterpart replied, "That may be true. It is also irrelevant."

    In his speech "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence", Dr. King called the Vietnam War an "enemy of the poor." It drained precious financial and human capital away from important poverty and other social programs. In this time of catastrophic global economic recession, the Obama administration has requested $65 billion to fight the war in Afghanistan in the FY 2010 budget. Total annual spending in Afghanistan will soon eclipse that of Iraq, draining precious financial and human capital away from unemployment, education, and other social programs needed today.

    As with the Vietnam government of President Diem, the Afghan government of President Karzai is viewed by many of its own citizens as corrupt. By his own admission, President Karzai has said, "The banks of the world are full of the money of our statesmen." Providing foreign aid to a country where the resources are stolen and mismanaged is becoming more difficult to justify.

    President Johnson's rational for US engagement in Vietnam was to stop the spread of communism. He believed that if Vietnam fell to the Communists, all of Southeast Asia would fall like dominoes. President Obama has taken ownership of former President Bush's "War on Terror." "If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans." Like communism, the "War on Terror" is a very nebulous foe, difficult to identify and defeat. Like the Communists, the Taliban is not a unified or monolithic movement; it is more of an ideology than a tangible enemy. Without a clear objective, an enemy that you can identify and an exit strategy, Afghanistan will become more like Vietnam.

    The American public is finding this effort more difficult to support as the fiscal crisis continues to paralyze the economy and no clear rational or exit strategy is being articulated by the Obama administration. According to The Associated Press, just over 50 percent of respondents to a Washington Post/ABC News poll recently released said the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. According a recent poll conducted by The Economist, 65 percent of the respondents said the US will withdraw from Afghanistan without winning. According to another ABC News poll, support along party lines is beginning to shift. Support for decreasing the US deployment has risen by 20 percent since January among Democrats, but also by 15 percent among independents, and by 12 percent among Republicans. Since March, views that the war's been worth fighting have lost 14 percentage points among Democrats, but also 7 percentage points among independents and Republicans alike.

    President Obama and his advisers should learn from the mistakes of former President Johnson and history (some ancient, some modern) and not repeat them. This is the region of the world that has never been defeated militarily. It is where empires go to die. The Greeks, Indians, Persians, Mongolians, British and Russians have tried to hold Afghanistan, but never succeeded.

    While, according to Admiral Mullen, the insurgents tactics have "gotten better, and more sophisticate ..." US tacticians remain mired in the same failed logic and processes. The US and its allies could "disrupt the use of Afghanistan as a terrorist base of operations, and attack the military capability of the Taliban regime ..." if more of the oppressed people of Afghanistan came to "... know the generosity of America and our allies." If America actually dropped more "... food, medicine and supplies to the starving and suffering men and women and children of Afghanistan ..." than munitions, political as well as military conflicts could be easier to resolve.

    The problem with a more humanitarian, focused solution is that those who fuel and promote the military industrial complex in America do not profit from the sale of humanitarian assistance. They profit from war. You can't win by just replacing Alexander the Great's war elephants with F-18 fighter jets and drones. This is why, if America is not smart, Afghanistan/Pakistan will become President Obama's Vietnam and once again be where empires go to die.