ObamaClinton wobbling on Afstan/Guess who got there first?

Further to this post,

Afstan: McChrystal report hits the fan/Obama changing position?

1) The President:

Obama Is Considering Strategy Shift in Afghan War

President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan, including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan, officials said Tuesday.

The options under review are part of what administration officials described as a wholesale reconsideration of a strategy the president announced with fanfare just six months ago. Two new intelligence reports are being conducted to evaluate Afghanistan and Pakistan, officials said.

The sweeping reassessment has been prompted by deteriorating conditions on the ground, the messy and still unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections and a dire report by Mr. Obama’s new commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. Aides said the president wanted to examine whether the strategy he unveiled in March was still the best approach and whether it could work with the extra combat forces General McChrystal wants.

In looking at other options, aides said, Mr. Obama might just be testing assumptions — and assuring liberals in his own party that he was not rushing into a further expansion of the war — before ultimately agreeing to the anticipated troop request from General McChrystal. But the review suggests the president is having second thoughts about how deeply to engage in an intractable eight-year conflict that is not going well.

Although Mr. Obama has said that a stable Afghanistan is central to the security of the United States, some advisers said he was also wary of becoming trapped in an overseas quagmire. Some Pentagon officials say they worry that he is having what they called “buyer’s remorse” after ordering an extra 21,000 troops there within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.

Mr. Obama met in the Situation Room with his top advisers on Sept. 13 to begin chewing over the problem, said officials involved in the debate. Among those on hand were Mr. Biden; Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates; Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton; James L. Jones, the national security adviser; and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They reached no consensus, so three or four more such meetings are being scheduled. “There are a lot of competing views,” said one official who, like others in this article, requested anonymity to discuss internal administration deliberations.

Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban, American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan. Mr. Biden has often said that the United States spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to American national security interests is in Pakistan...

A shift from a counterinsurgency strategy to a focus on counterterrorism would turn the administration’s current theory on its head [emphasis added]. The strategy Mr. Obama adopted in March concluded that to defeat Al Qaeda, the United States needed to keep the Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan and making it a haven once again for Osama bin Laden’s network...

And note that all this is effectively being done, er, unilaterally. Remember when George Bush was slanged to the rafters for being unilateral? Where are the howls in the media now?

2) The Secretary of State:

Clinton rebuffs general's warning on Afghanistan

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed back against the US military's blunt warning that the battle against insurgents in Afghanistan would likely be lost within a year without more US troops.

Clinton's comments in an interview with PBS television late Monday [video here] came amid reports that the Pentagon has asked General Stanley McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, to delay a request for more troops.

Clinton expressed "respect" for McChrystal's assessment that the United States would likely lose the war in Afghanistan within a year without more US forces.

"But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite," she said.

Her remarks were the latest sign of stiffening resistance within President Barack Obama's administration to a major escalation in the US commitment in Afghanistan, and a growing rift over the issue between civilian leaders and the military...

One possibility regarding the general:

McChrystal to resign if not given resources for Afghanistan

Remember when Mr Obama and Ms Clinton were gung-ho on reinforcing Afstan during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination? How the...are turning.

Kind of reminds me of our prime minister: at first he strongly advocated the Afghan mission ("...cutting and running is not my way and it's not the Canadian way..."); then he quite rapidly he lost his enthusiasm, more here.

Update: The opinion of a perspicacious reader on Gen. McChrystal's position:

F...... right he should resign if he doesn’t get the resources: would you ask soldiers serving under you to risk their lives in a fight the politicians aren’t committed to?