Found this (Minneapolis-St. Paul StarTribune)
article on WorldNews.com and thought it might help explain some of the issues surrounding the President's delay in sending more troops as some would have him do right now.
Exerpts from the article:
Take what you will from this, but I know I wouldn't send more ground troops in-country unless and until I had assurances that the government in place had a firm hand in taking over their own country.
If you look at the map on page 10 to this thread, you'll see that the Taliban still holds a vast majority of Afghanistan. If the mission has, in fact, changed from "defeating Al-Quaida" to "nation building", then ensuring that the new government is capable of governing is crucial to this process. So, until you know that they can, it makes no sense to commit more troops to an otherwise futile cause. Hence, the question rightfully before the President: Has the original anti-terrorist objective been met? If so, how do we leave in short order and ensure stability in the region? -OR- What is the new mission and how do we go about achieving it?