....obviously you have never heard of Donald Rumsfield (not president, but had his charter...) Given we made the goofy decision to prosecute that war, it should have been done with sufficient troops. Generals were fired over that one. (
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/12/washington/12shinseki.html)
Bush did not give the generals what they needed and wanted in Afghanistan, largely because he was busy with Iraq.
BTW.
Point 1: Our armies are commanded by civilians. Its the way our system works. Generals are the subordinates of those civilians. In any business, the subordinate does not always get exactly what he asks for, as sometimes that subordinate asks for more than he needs. The good boss knows when and when not to "trim the fat"
Point 2: The mission the general had was to give Obama options of what could be done with different troop commitment levels. Obama weighted strategic options. To my knowledge, there was never a specific request for a specific number of troops..... that was something created by the media.
Point 3: The war was in its 8th year, during most of this time, it operated without much in the way of strategic direction. Three months, or whatever, was expedience compared to its historic MO.