Let me see.

Yesterday, the Huffington Post claimed a memo from Jones saying Afghanistan was like the Jay Leno Show--- something they flog out everynight even though it is past its time.

Eikenberry, from what I can gather, is saying that the Afghan national political turf is too unstable to set an anchor in, and the formula of $2.5 billion in aid to $50 billion in defense isn't going to deliver a turn around.

Because of that political/civilian lack of capability, he argues that the troop increase may not be wise, productive, and definitely not able to address the President's pursuit of a viable short or medium term exit strategy.

I wonder how much Gen. McCrystal's now "long-in-the-tooth" recommendation from August might be changed today if Eikenberry's reports are accurate?

Clearly, there is no concensus, but I have trouble believing that an engaged military leadership does not already detect the same mounting pol/civ frustration as the Ambassador. Maybe we are just not hearing the complete story?

If they are not even in dialogue, or seeing things in a diametrically opposed way, we really have problems.

So, when does Ambassador Crocker get called up to try to clean up the civilian side?