THE STRATEGIST DECIDES - AT 7:32 P.M. ET:  This McClatchy newspapers report cannot be independently verified, but it generally conforms to other reports we've gotten in recent weeks:

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is nearing a decision to send more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan next year, but he may not announce it until after he consults with key allies and completes a trip to Asia later this month, administration and military officials have told McClatchy.

Examine the number.  Is there something wrong there?

The plan would fall well short of the 80,000 troops that Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, suggested as a "low-risk option" that would offer the best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan.

It splits the difference between two other McChrystal options: a "high-risk" one that called for 20,000 additional troops and a "medium-risk" one that would add 40,000 to 45,000 troops.

Eisenhower once said that if you need a regiment, send a division, which is a much larger force.  General of the Army and bathtub fleet commander Barack Obama apparently says, "Hey, let's split the difference and grab an ice cream."

That doesn't mean a smaller force is automatically wrong.  I claim no expertise on Afghanistan.  But a full policy is required, based on goals and supplying the means to achieve them.  This piecemeal decision-making destroys morale and generally gets a nation nowhere. 

If the story is correct, then the president isn't pursuing a winning strategy, but a hold and get out strategy.  This cannot inspire others to fight with us, or even support us.

And Afghanistan, according to the long-ago Obama, is the necessary war.  Necessary no longer, apparently.

November 7, 2009