Maybe that is why President Obama has just informed his war council that he's not happy with ANY of the options they've been throwing around for the last several months. He may end up sending more troops, possibly even a number in the ballpark of what his generals are asking for, but not without a much more coherent endgame with a clear exit strategy. American's do not have the stomach for a 10 year commitment of troops and treasure with no assured success in sight, but that won't keep a large number of them from buying into right-wing criticism if he decides to "cut and run". The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, himself a recent combat general has just cabled President Obama to strongly oppose sending any more troops. Unfortunately it may be deemed necessary to maintain some presence in the region until we are confident that there is a stable and secure government, not in Afghanistan but across the border in Pakistan, the country with all the nukes.
   All in all a particularly sticky situation, one more example of having to step very carefully through the minefields haphazardly scattered by the previous administration, where the slightest misstep could be disastrous. The economy is another.