Obama Weighs Troop Increase in Afghanistan

The debate over sending more troops to Afghanistan got more complex this month as another heavy hitter on President Obama's national security team questioned whether more soldiers can truly help the U.S. cause in the increasingly violent country.

This time, it was Karl Eikenberry, current U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and, equally important in the context of his remarks, commander of NATO troops there from 2005 to 2007. Eikenberry strongly warned against appearing to lend credibility to the Hamid Karzai-led government, widely regarded as corrupt throughout much of the country. Critics argue that U.S. aid is doing little more than lining the pockets of money-hungry bureaucrats in Kabul, and until the Karzai government begins reining its officials in, they say, the United States should be wary of contributing more resources—including troops.

This was also the thrust of Eikenberry's argument, and there was some chatter about whether the Obama administration itself had leaked the ambassador's assessment, as the White House for its part echoed these concerns. "The president believes that we need to make clear to the Afghan government that our commitment is not open-ended," a White House spokesman said. "After years of substantial investments by the American people, governance in Afghanistan must improve in a reasonable period of time." In other words, they want to see progress.

But how to measure it? This, U.S. military officials say, will be one of the chief challenges facing the administration in the weeks to come. What is clear is that things are not going well. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, estimated at a conference this month that there are now Taliban shadow governments operating in 33 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces. The Pentagon reportedly provided a number of scenarios for deployments of various sizes, ranging from 10,000 to more than 40,000 new troops, the figure favored by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country. Most within the halls of the Pentagon or at military headquarters in Kabul expect to see at least 20,000 new forces begin to flow in after the New Year.

After rejecting a number of troop options, Obama has asked Pentagon planners to create clear "on-and-off-ramps" before he decides how many more soldiers to send. This means figuring out precisely what U.S. troops will need to accomplish before turning over these responsibilities to Afghan security forces—and how long it will take. It also requires a clear plan for withdrawal. But even moving troops into Afghanistan is fraught with difficulty compared with surging forces into Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the U.S. war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, said last week.

Referring to an old Army credo that "amateurs talk tactics" but "professionals talk logistics," he said that there are "enormous challenges" as the military wrestles with how best to get troops into the large and critically underdeveloped nation, particularly, he added, compared to the ease with which the military was able to flow more forces into Iraq. Petraeus also noted the troubling growth of Taliban shadow governments, which he estimates are now in 33 of Afghanistan's 34 provinces.

One key to begin dismantling those sorts of structures, Petraeus added, lies in reconciliation efforts that might draw Taliban who are not hard-liners into the allied fold. He pointed to the success of the Iraq surge, which brought in former Sunni insurgents, often with the help of cash payments. "Money is ammunition," Petraeus said. But he warned, too, that Afghanistan is unique. "What you need to do," he said, "is throw away all of the analogies."

• See photos of the Afghan election.
• Read A Different Front Line in Afghanistan.