In an op-ed in The Australian, Major General Jim Molan, chief of operations for the multinational force in Iraq from 2004-2005, urges Australia to increase its commitment of troops in Afghanistan from 1,100 to 2,000.  Molan argues that NATO needs 180,000 troops - roughly three times the current number of forces - to win the war in Afghanistan. He writes:

Defensive operations do not win wars but can prevent defeat until more security is available. Yet if adequate security is not going to be available at some future date, defensive operations just prolong the war until defeat ensues.

I have long estimated an adequate number of foreign troops in Afghanistan would be 180,000, based on history and recent experience in Iraq. Most, if not all, would be required to conduct offensive operations. Such a number should just about suffice to: provide a basic level of protection to people to allow reconstruction and development to occur; protect and form the elements of government, including an effective military and police; and effectively attack our opponents.

Of course, unless there is the will to win among our allies, matched by a willingness to deploy the right number of troops who can conduct effective operations, not just show their nation's flag, there is no point in increasing Australian troops.

Molan concludes by saying, "Whether we like it or not, we have committed to Afghanistan and withdrawal does not appear to be an option. The only workable strategy is to win, and winning is still possible."

If you believe Molan is right that "winning is still possible," then we'd better get on it, because the news in Afghanistan continues to worsen. This morning we find that the Pakistani government has thrown in the towel in its fight against the Taliban, assuring that the region along its northwestern border with Afghanistan will remain a safe haven for fighters to launch cross border attacks.

There's also a report from the UN saying civilian deaths in Afghanistan are up 40%, the highest level since the 2001 US invasion that successfully ousted the Taliban.

As President Obama mulls his decision on troop deployments to Afghanistan, the whole thing has the feel of Iraq, circa 2006. After the bombing of the Golden Dome mosque in Samarra in February sent the country into a downward spiral of severe civil strife and chaos, the Bush administration spent much of the year trying to get a handle on how to respond. That process eventually led to the troop surge announced by President Bush in January 2007 - a policy Obama opposed as a Senator and candidate for President - which has been widely credited as a success that restored stability to Iraq and saved the country from disintegrating.

As President and Commander in Chief, Obama now faces a similar decision of his own in Afghanistan. If Molan's assessment is correct that the war is still winnable but will require 180,00 troops to do so, then Obama will have to significantly increase American troop levels there - and lean heavily on our NATO allies to do the same.

For at least the last two years Obama has argued that the war in Afghansitan is far more important than the war in Iraq. Given that the situation in Afghanitan is deteriorating and time is running out, we're about to have another "rhetoric meets reality" moment when President Obama announces his decision - which should be coming any day now.