"Where I believe the current administration has failed is in the conduct of its international operation of the war. It has succeeded in uniting those who were traditional enemies against us. It has bullied and intimidated and insulted its allies and neutrals and succeeded in alienating nations which after 9/11 were sympathetic to our cause. It has done this by acting unilaterally and ignoring international conventions and organizations when they failed to rubber-stamp our demands. It has entered into a pointless and ill-planned war because of its geopolitical calculations which has failed and now backfired into a festoring sore which it refuses to withdraw from simply because it is afraid to lose face. It has squandered treasure and lives on foreign battlefields without any military objectives other than a victory which it cannot even define, much less achieve. And it has created infinte future enemies by unleashing modern war on peoples who just happened to be in the way. It has spread resources from Afghanistan to Iraq, from a necessary operation to a questionable one, to the point where now even the tide in Afghanistan has turned against us."

I get the idea that you think that Afghanistan should have more troops. Yet, Afghanistan is a international effort which has NATO fully involved. There are Canadian troops fighting and dying in Afghanistan.

"Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 in the United States, Canada was the third largest contributor to the invasion of Afghanistan, after the United States and United Kingdom. Of the approximately 15,000 Canadian troops who have been stationed in Afghanistan, 2,500 remain as the standard complement.

In total, 27 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in the mission - the second highest number of fatalities per nation in the Allied Force, behind the United States.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada's_role_in_the_invasion_of_Afghanistan

Afghanistan is land locked and has rough terrian and very few roads. Sending a large miltary to Afghanistan would be very logistically difficult.
Compared to Iraq which has a large sea port. Iraq had a large army, countries in the region have large armies. Iraq has roads, rail, and virtually has no areas which even require road to get to. Afghanistan is an excellent place for terrorists to fight in small groups- they can actually "hold" mountain areas, unless a large scale assault is attempted and then they can simply melt away before this huge build up can take place.

Afghanistan doesn't have much infrastructure, Iraq has much more infrastructure- though it's in worse condition than most people thought pre-invasion, though it's still vastly better than Afghanistan.

Now, look at Lebanon, first France said it was going to only deploy 200 miltary personnel, but because of political pressure they changed that to 2000- and good for them, that a reasonable number for French to have involved. And other countries could add troops to get to number somewhere around 15,000-20,000 troops. Btw, NATO apparently has 25,000 troops on stand by which were designed for immediate emergency deployment- these could have been used in Lebanon or Afghanistan if the politicans wanted them. [The only reasonable assumption is that these troops are being held for potentially a more immediate and serious need- and of course this separate from US capability- this an European capability.]

Point is that Afghanistan is a international effort, and if there is a problem with troop levels, it's not really due to the US side of equation- the EU has made a commitent in general to have miltary that could deploy in similar ways that US can deploy troops in order to maintin global security and political involvement in international matters, and more specifically the EU has made firm commitents to deploy in Afghanistan- and there has been some problems fulfilling these committents [but this is kinda of new challenge for them and involves political and bureaucratic problems that need to be overcome]. BUT it seems to me that at this point in time, the US, Europe, and all others are have enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan. And like Iraq, the main thing is getting to point in which Afghanistan miltary and security in general improve to point in which less international forces will be needed in the region. In other words, Afghanistan though in many ways in ahead of Iraq in the general political arena [domestically and internationally] it's not as mature in taking back it's own security as Iraq is at the moment.