ABC has a piece about the difficulties of fighting in Afghanistan:
Two years ago, only a U.S. company -- about 150 soldiers -- controlled the area. Now, an entire brigade has rolled in with its more than 5,000 soldiers. But attacks have only increased, with a spike of 60 percent in some areas.It seems odd that increasing troops would actually lead to more attacks, which goes counter to the conventional wisdom that said Bush took his eye of the WoT by sending forces to remove Hussein instead. But stories like this, and the ones above, appear to be preparing the way by reducing the expectations.
Many predicted that as soon as Obama was through using Afghanistan and bin Laden as a hammer to knock around Bush and McCain and get elected he'd backpeddle. But he runs a major risk if doing so. Another attack following a NATO withdrawal without an adequate illusion of peace would be impossible to defend and would provide a strategic victory for the terrorists that would make the Mujahadeen victory over the Soviets look like Grenada by comparison. They'd also have a solid recruiting tool for decades to come. So this will be a tenuous endeavor.
But maybe we have no choice. A world financial meltdown doesn't lend itself to funding more war efforts, especially if our hands remained tied vis a vis Pakistan. Therefore, it wouldn't be surprising to eventually hear Reid making his proclamation again, assuming he can find a way to blame the previous administration, of course.