The Future for Afghanistan ?

The Washington Post: David Ingnatius looks at the strategic review of General McChrystal in Afghanistan. It can argued that Mr Ingnatius has it about right, the article states the following, " This may be one of those messy situations where the best course is to both shoot and talk.. " The McChrystal plan to protect Afghans does recall the Strategic Hamlets of the Vietnam War, the idea was to protect the local people of Vietnam from the Viet Cong, on the whole as the US lost its first War it didn't work in the long term. Also you can protect the people all the want but if you have insurgents you still have to catch or kill them, its that simple, otherwise as Security Forces in Afghanistan you can build roads, schools and hospitals and the see the Taliban/Terrorists blow them up. Also the question has to be asked if you are going to secure the people do you place troops in the small towns and villages around Afghanistan or do you bring the people in to a secure area. As recent bombings have shown in Kabul, the West on the whole is not that secure in Afghanistan. Thus if you place troops in small urban areas you need more troops, thus Obama will need to send more troops. This July and August has been the bloodiest months for the US since the War started in 2001, at last count in August the US has lost 51 soldiers. Thus the recent view held by many that Obama is the next LBJ, and Afghanistan is the new Vietnam.