we have The Obama and Afghanistan:
President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.
Which sounds an awful lot like "I don't think we can win(just like we actually lost in Iraq but let's not talk about that) but I'll throw a bunch of troops there to keep the heat off me, so I can say I'm doing something."
I don't pretend to have the magic solution, but I do know that telling troops you're sending to the sharp end "I don't think you can actually accomplish anything, but you'll buy me time to think about it" doesn't sound like the best of ideas.
A little further on there's a bit about counting on his 'popularity in Europe' to get more EU troops; problems there are mainly two I can see:
First, it doesn't matter how many troops whoever puts in there if their government won't let them fight and kill the bad guys. Like the German spec-ops unit that closed in on the Taliban commander and let him go because their rules said "Doesn't matter that he's a murdering terrorist, if you can't arrest him alive and whole then let him go"; that's not going to help win.
Second, if he actually demands the EU/NATO countries put more troops in, I don't think he'll like what happens to his 'popularity' in Europe.
I don't like or trust Obama, but I do NOT want his actions in 'Stan to fail; hell, people, I've got family likely to wind up over there if it does(assuming they don't go there anyway). But I do not think this "I'll play at a surge, but it's not really a serious military effort" crap is a good idea. I'd imagine there's a damn good idea what would actually work, but with Obama & Co. having the contempt for military action they do, they want to play at something else. Which could get awful damn bad.