Hillarysworld

As he spends his Labor Day holiday weekend at the Camp David retreat in Maryland, Afghanistan is confronting him with what may prove the defining decision of his presidency. “It’s an issue he understands could be a danger to his administration,” said one of the historians who attended the presidential dinner.

The completion of a comprehensive strategy review by General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and other Nato forces in Afghanistan, has brought to boiling point a long-simmering stew of military, diplomatic and political conflicts over America’s faltering mission in Kabul.

Joseph Biden, the vice-president, has expressed public doubts about a new US military build-up in Afghanistan, mainly on the grounds that it might destabilise Pakistan, whose nuclear arsenal makes it a more pressing US concern.

Robert Gates, the Pentagon chief who has served both Obama and George W Bush, said last week the US effort in Kabul was “only now beginning”. Yet earlier this year he said he was “very sceptical” about increasing troop levels beyond the 68,000 due to be deployed by the end of 2009.

On the liberal wing of the Democratic party, Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin has been horrified by suggestions of a new troop build-up and last week called for a “flexible timetable” to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan.

At the same time, Richard Holbrooke, the president’s special envoy to the region, has argued that more troops are essential to prevent the Taliban from regaining a foothold and allowing Al-Qaeda to rebuild a haven. Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, has not commented on McChrystal’s review but was publicly sup-portive of Obama’s decision in February to send in more troops and has repeatedly emphasised the long battle ahead to root out extremism in the region. She is widely expected to endorse any request for a bigger force.

The rest of Washington’s national security establishment is equally divided over both the coalition’s military objectives and the dangers of a public backlash should the Pentagon fail to produce early victories after eight years of costly conflict. One poll last week showed that only 25% of Americans support increasing the number of troops. More than 40% now say they want to see troops coming home, up from 24% in February.

McChrystal’s review declared the situation to be “serious” but did not contain a specific request for military reinforcements. He insisted success was “achievable” but it required “a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve and increased unity of effort”.

A request for up to 40,000 more troops is nonetheless expected by the end of this month, when Obama will face a pivotal decision. Does he go all out with a military “surge” that might produce a measurable victory? Does he try to find a politically acceptable means of increasing combat forces – the so-called “trigger-pullers” – without too great a rise in overall numbers? Or does he order a halt to the carnage and blame it all on Bush?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6823409.ece