I don't understand how you do the former without some of the latter though. What Gates is pointing out is that the legitimacy of the Afghan govt is not going to be settled in a matter of weeks, and if we're going to continue this process at all its essential to provide security for the Afghan people during the process.

For more nuance though, there's a possibility that the waiting game is partly to put pressure on other NATO allies to provide more troops before we make our commitment. The trouble with that theory though is that 1) Most of the European countries don't have much reserve capability to send large numbers of troops, even if the political will could be bent that way and 2) their reaction so far seems to be to echo the line about waiting until after the elections too.

Yikes. Pouring more men and money into Afghanistan in the hope that everything will turn out right. I certainly hope that Obama is working to “modify the goal.” Hopefully, the definition of victory will be something like denying the use of Afghan territory to those who would attack us, and not some ill-defined evolutionary process that has us propping up an unpopular government in Kabul indefinitely.

Now, I realize some people do feel defeat and withdrawal are inevitable, and I don't think that's an irrational view at all. But if that's the case, we should start pulling out right now- not keep the troops that are already there hanging out on a limb. We either commit the necessary force level or get out now.

Yep, only Republican presidents are supposed to listen to the generals, even if the closest contact a Democrat president had with the military was playing GI Joe and Major Matt Mason.

But seriously, people are misunderstanding the role of the military. The civilian government sets policy and goals, the generals tell the government what it will take to accomplish the goal and the likelihood of it's success. If McChrystal (as an example) tells Obama it will take 100,000 soldiers to accomplish a goal it is foolish for Obama to respond “No, it should only take 50,000″. In that case Obama is placing himself in the role of general, one in which he has no expertise. If Obama doesn't want to commit the 100,000 troops he needs to abandon or modify the goal.

Obama is trying to fight a war but limit the military's resources, the same strategy used by Rumsfeld and LBJ. That is a strategy likely to fail at a cost of American lives.

You can escape the responsibility of tomorrow by invading it today. – Most Neocons

The best military strategy and indeed the best overall strategy for our nation to recover and become strong again is for Cheney to shut his pie hole and keep it shut.

Now we are supposed to NOT listen to the Generals when they tell us what they need? Man, I must be in Alice's Looking Glass, because I could have sworn when Bush was in office it was Listen , to , the , Generals !

Also, don't forget the MacArthur debacle, with wanting to use nukes, cause nuking the border between korea and china would have been such a great idea.

“Yes, we can!” — Barack Obama and his inner circle

I’m just getting sick and tired of the bloodletting by attrition. It ultimately ends up costing us more in American lives and tax dollars. And that’s the direction I feel we are heading. I pray I’m wrong.

And, if the lefties are sick and tired of hearing Cheney's views on things, then why don't the lefties post up an article from a comparable knowledge lefty to explain why the strategy….as of October 2009… is the best handling of the situation.