Gamble?

To be clear, the US is not going all in.  If everyone else is going to use poker language to discuss this, so will I (and I play poker).  Obama is putting in essentially a half-pot raise.  That is, the US already has 68,000 troops in Afghanistan (see here for US's contribution to NATO and those of other countries).  Half of the current deployment is in NATO, half or so is apparently dedicated to Operation Enduring Freedom (counter-terrorism and training the Afghan National Army).  So, 30k-34k is a meaningful increase.  But it is not everything.

From the coverage thus far, Obama is not the only one in DC not willing to give Gen. McChrystal the full 44,000.  The Joint Staff seems supportive of a lower number, since they have to care about the stress on the military and alternative missions/threats while McChrystal does not. 

The key for the US military is, obviously, getting smaller in Iraq, which should happen quickly after the next Iraqi election, if it happens anytime soon.

Will having more troops on the ground make a difference?  Yes, but the military can only do so much governance work. And this requires a delicate balancing act--to commit to Afghanistan to assure the allies and Pakistan but also not so tied that Karzai can get complacent.  Not easy by any stretch.


[Not more blogging from me today as my schedule is booked until I land tonight in Montreal]