Agonizing over Aghanistan

Two weeks back I did an op-ed arguing that it's inconceivable that the U.S. will not play a central role in Afghanistan and next-door Pakistan in the coming years. It was in response to reports from Washington that quite a few people (also in the military) were getting impatient with the president's decisionmaking process which has been ongoing since word leaked last September (I think it was) of General McChrystal's recommendation that in order to pursue a new strategy the U.S. send up to 40,000 extra troops. And the president still hasn't made a decision. In fact, last week he held what was reported to be his eight major session with his national security team on the issue, where originally just a handful were planned. From the reports on it, one could conclude that the president is particularly concerned about having a viable exit strategy, or even that ultimately the strategy will be an exit strategy (with the U.S. mostly handing things over to whatever Afghan partners within a few years). The meeting came on the heels of word that the U.S. ambassador in Kabul does not believe there's any point in sending more troops until the Karzai government cleans up its act. This is indeed a vital point, although I continue to wonder whether the Obama team considers bypassing the man and his cronies to be an option--along the lines of how in Iraq after 2006 we worked with local groups to get a handle on the Sunni insurgency and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. In any case, it's obvious that Obama is taking this issue more than a little seriously--that he's not "dithering," in other words--not least because U.S. and other soldiers (along with Afghan soldiers and civilians) will continue to be killed, regardless of which way he decides. That he's very aware of this aspect of the matter (just one of many, mind you, although perhaps the most burdening) you can see in a story on his visit to Arlington National Cemetery last week. Apparently, the photo at the beginning here was taken that day.