Here's part of the problem

From Time via Yahoo, regarding the Afghan war debate:

As Commander in Chief, the President is forced to strike a balance between his generals' combat needs and what America is prepared to commit. No President wants to send more young men and women into harm's way than is necessary

Sorry, but this "analysis" is bass-ackwards.

"Sending more young men and women into harm's way than is necessary" is not the problem. The more we send, and the more overwhelming our forces are, the less harm there will be. You don't incur casualties by sending too many troops. You incur casualties by sending too few.

Negotiating a compromise works in politics. It does not work in war. Striking a balance between generals' combat needs and what America is prepared to commit is a recipe for disaster.

There are two options here, as in any war:
1) All out effort, with overwhelming forces, and get the fight over with as soon as possible.
2) Don't go fight.

The one constant in military history is that the bloodiest battles are between evenly-matched forces. The Obama policy (and the Bush-Rumsfeld policy before him, and the Johnson-MacNamara policy before that) was to go to war with "economy of force." Don't send too many troops - that might be unpopular with the public.

I'll tell you what's unpopular with Americans: long dragged out battles being fought with a halfway commitment. Lots of young men in body bags, who would still be alive if they had sufficient forces to do the job.

If I was an advisor to President Obama, I'd be telling him to make up his fracking mind. If we're going to war, go with single-minded determination and all the forces we can possibly muster. If it's not worth an all-out fight, it's not worth fighting for at all.