End Result in Afghanistan

The New York Times: Reports the following on General McChrystal report to the Obama Administration on Afghanistan, " unless he is provided more forces and a robust counterinsurgency strategy, the war in Afghanistan is most likely lost. " Thus can President Obama carry a holding strategy for Afghanistan, keep the force level at is present of just seventy thousand troops but with no increase, the simple brutal answer is yes but it will be at the cost of more casualties for US troops. This is 1965 all over again, in other words the Vietnam War, in 65 LBJ had a crushing victory over the Republicans with the promise that he would not send more troops to Vietnam. There is a difference with Obama in 2008, Afghanistan was the Just War, not the War of choice as Iraq was seen for Bush 43, in essence Obama tied his political fortunes to winning in Afghanistan. Thus we come to report by General McChrystal that is blunt, either more troops or the US will fail in Afghanistan, Obama wants to keep Afghanistan on the side lines while he fights for health care, LBJ wanted to fight his real love, the social change of the Great Society, but like Vietnam for LBJ, Afghanistan is not a War that you can fight when you want to fight it, its now and its urgent. In 1965 LBJ didn't want to send troops to protect the airfields of US planes in South Vietnam but they need protection from the Viet Cong, thus the start of the massive troops presence in South Vietnam, Obama has a choice , either more troops or lose, Afghanistan taken over by the Taliban would be a threat to Pakistan, and the rest of the region, Pakistan is nuclear armed, one really cant see a way out of this for President Obama, he cant risk losing but winning might feel like losing. TO WIN IS TO LOSE!