This is what Thomas Johnson and M. Chris Mason argue in Foreign Policy. Johnson works at the Naval Postgraduate School, and Mason formerly served with the U.S. Foreign Service in Afghanistan. Their article is one of the best from the camp who believes that the current effort in Afghanistan is futile. Money quote:

The reality on the ground is that Afghanistan is Vietnam redux. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's regime is an utterly illegitimate, incompetent kleptocracy. The Afghan National Army (ANA) -- slotted to take over the conflict when the coalition pulls out -- will not even be able to feed itself in five years, much less turn back the mounting Taliban tide. The U.S. Center for Army Lessons Learned determined by statistical analysis that the ANA will never grow larger than 100,000 men because nearly 30 percent either desert or fail to re-enlist each year. The ANA is disproportionately Tajik, drug use is a major problem, all recruits are illiterate, and last month the ANA reached only half its modest recruiting goal despite 40 percent unemployment nationwide.  The American media, in its own regression to 1963, simply regurgitates Pentagon press releases that vastly inflate the actual size of the Afghan military, which is actually less than 60,000 men, just 32,000 of whom are combat troops.

Johnson and Mason go on to argue that Obama realizes that the situation is futile, and therefore the current surge is just a political effort to allow Obama to save face before pulling out. I don't believe that-- I think Obama genuinely wants to give McChrystal and the troops a last chance to turn the war around.  Certainly, if the effort fails, it will strengthen Obama's ability to pull out.  But I don't think that adding 30,000 more troops was nothing more than a cynical, political maneuver. It is always easier to criticize someone else than to offer a viable alternative. In any case, their warnings about the weakness of the ANA are absolutely frightening.