More? Less? Nobody knows

The New York Times has an article by Mark Landler and Jeff Zeleny about the troop situation in Afghanistan:

The disclosure that the United States ambassador in Kabul has expressed written opposition to deploying more American troops to Afghanistan lays bare the fierce debate within the Obama administration over the direction of the war, even after weeks of deliberations and with the president on the verge of a decision. The public airing of Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry’s reservations bolsters the case of those in the president’s circle, notably his vice president and some of his top political advisers, who remain skeptical of a request for 40,000 troops by the top American commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley A. McChrystal, several officials said Thursday.
In meetings in the White House Situation Room, and in confidential cables, the ambassador, a retired Army lieutenant general who once was the top American commander in Afghanistan, has argued that the administration needs to move away from a debate over numbers and confront a more basic issue: the risk that sending more soldiers will deepen the dependence of the Afghan government on the United States.
Public disclosure of his views has heightened existing tensions between senior military officers and General Eikenberry, who left the military in April to become Mr. Obama’s emissary. Several military officials complained bitterly that his latest cables were part of a skein of pessimistic and defeatist memos he has sent since taking over in Kabul.
At a National Security Council meeting, however, Mr. Obama picked up on General Eikenberry’s arguments about growing Afghan dependence. The president was far more assertive than in previous sessions, pressing his advisers about the wisdom of four proposals for adding troops. The change in his tone, from listening to challenging, was palpable, officials said.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said the president had not rejected any of the four options, but was weighing how to mix and match elements from each of them. “I would say it was more, how can we combine some of the best features of several of the options to maximum good effect?” Mr. Gates told reporters. A central focus in Mr. Obama’s deliberations, he said, was, “How do we signal resolve and at the same time signal to the Afghans as well as the American people that this is not an open-ended commitment?”
General Eikenberry, a soldier-diplomat with a foot in each camp, is now at the center of that debate. As a commander with two tours in Afghanistan, he helped train Afghan troops, becoming known as an advocate for the Afghan national army. He also developed strong opinions on strategic issues including the role of Pakistan, where leaders of Al Qaeda have found sanctuary.
As the top American diplomat in Kabul, General Eikenberry has had nearly daily exposure to President Hamid Karzai, most recently during twenty hours of negotiations, along with Senator John Kerry, to persuade him to accept the results of an election investigation that required a second round of voting. These encounters, officials said, have left him pessimistic that Mr. Karzai will seize the challenge of creating a viable, stand-alone Afghan army.
“No one would dispute that putting in troops will improve security,” an official familiar with General Eikenberry’s views said. “The question is, what will Afghans do? Will the Afghan government embrace the mission of training and leading combat operations? The answer is, we don’t know.” It was not clear if the White House asked General Eikenberry to submit his comments, or if he did so on his own. But some senior officials who remain skeptical of the buildup seemed pleased that his perspective had entered the public debate, which has been dominated for two months by the leaked assessment of General McChrystal.
The behind-the-scenes tug-of-war over policy has become increasingly bitter. A few days after General Eikenberry sent his cable to the State Department, top military and civilian officials gathered for a regularly scheduled meeting at the embassy, where General McChrystal pointedly addressed many of the issues in the Eikenberry memo.
General McChrystal did not refer to the cable directly, but specifically challenged General Eikenberry’s conclusions, according to one official familiar with the meeting. General McChrystal, he said, said that no alternatives had been offered besides “the helicopter on the roof of the embassy,” a reference to the hasty American withdrawal from Saigon in 1975.
After the meeting, General McChrystal and General Eikenberry had a private conference. It is unclear what was said at the meeting, but American officials said that the next day General Eikenberry sent another cable softening his stance about the impact of a troop increase in Afghanistan. A spokesman for General Eikenberry declined to comment.
As Mr. Obama left Thursday for a weeklong trip to Asia, he took his Afghanistan review with him. The president asked his military and civilian advisers not to present entirely new options, administration officials said, but rather to help choose from what he believes are the most promising elements. The discussions are not fixed on troop numbers alone, the officials said, but on underlying strategy and performance measures.
Even before the president announces a decision on his Afghan strategy, the White House is trying to build support among allies, in Congress and the public. The central message of the White House on Thursday was to stress that the president would not agree to an open-ended commitment of troops. “It’s important to fully examine not just how we’re going to get folks in but how we’re going to get folks out,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary.
General Eikenberry’s reluctance on additional troops would seem to put him at odds not only with General McChrystal but also with Mr. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who have been coalescing around a plan to send roughly 30,000 troops, according to officials. The State Department has declined to comment on General Eikenberry’s cables, saying that his advice and that of Mrs. Clinton were confidential. General Eikenberry, who holds degrees from Harvard and Stanford, has long been a controversial figure in the military, with some faulting his management style as high-handed. The State Department’s inspector general is doing an investigation of the embassy in Kabul that has involved asking employees about General Eikenberry’s management style. But officials said the audit was routine, and focused on issues like the heavy workload of employees.

Rico says this is what it sounded like in the White House in 1963, before Kennedy was shot, when they were discussing sending more troops to Vietnam. Can you spell quagmire? Can you even have one in a desert?