The worst way to fight a war is on the cheap. Overwhelming force – if you've got it – is not only more effective than minimal commitment, it's also more humane. Overwhelming force ends wars; minimal force prolongs them.
We saw the failure of a measured response in Korea, in Viet Nam, in Iraqi pacification (we had enough force for the initial attack and it almost went too well). We can see the success of even a modest surge in Iraq. Last night the BBC ran a story on Iraqi children in playgrounds for the first time since who knows when; the BBC is no fan of George Bush and his policies.
Minimal force allows the enemy to build resistance; it's like not taking all the penicillin in the bottle when you have an infection. Resistance means longer wars and a loss of public support; a loss of public support leads to calls for withdrawal; domestic calls for withdrawal give the foreign enemy hope. It's a bad cycle we've been in time and time again.
The war in Afghanistan has gone on longer than the war in Iraq. It's much more popular both in the US and in the rest of the world than the war in Iraq but casualties in Afghanistan are beginning to get attention, especially as casualties in Iraq decline. The Taliban is at least locally resurgent. Political conditions in Pakistan have given them a respite and more shelter there.
So it's time to start to end the war in Afghanistan. A surge from all willing allied countries is the way to do that. The politics are tough because some NATO countries are not doing their share and insist on keeping their troops out of harm's way; the burden'll be born disproportionately by the willing. But the willing are also taking the casualties of a war that's been too prolonged.
The apparent success of the Iraq surge is both a good example and helps makes troops available for the same strategy in the country on the other side of Iran.