The New York Times and the Washington Post performed an important public service today by publishing separate, detailed accounts of how Barack Obama reached his decision on Afghanistan.  Also today, the two top writers for these papers — the Times’ Tom Friedman and the Post’s Bob Woodward — appeared together on Meet the Press to give their analysis of what happened and what lies ahead.

What stands out is the thoroughness of the debate within the Administration leading up to the decision to “surge” 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan but also, more importantly, the lack of optimism that this strategy will result in any conclusive, decisive change.

The reasons for the lack of optimism are easy to see.  An insurgency that is diffuse and dispersed, a government that is disorganized and corrupt, a population that is poor, largely illiterate and hard to protect.  And that’s just Afghanistan.  Pakistan is even more complicated and discouraging.  Then there’s what the White House calls its “core goal:  to disrupt, dismantle and eventually [emphasis added] defeat al Qaeda and to prevent their return to either Afghanistan or Pakistan.”  How are we to know when we have achieved this goal?  Defense Secretary Gates said today that the U.S. for “years” has had no good intelligence on where the leader of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, is.  How can you defeat an enemy you cannot find?

There is more than a little frustration on the part of the United States, NATO and the small number of predominantly Muslim countries that are engaged in this effort.  Friedman seemed almost exasperated in talking about the failure of Muslim moderates to energetically oppose the kind of terrorism exemplified by the suicide bomber who blew himself up on Friday in the middle of a mosque in Rawalpindi.  “If they (moderate Afghans) think we want it more than they do, we’re dead because they will let us want it more than they do and they will hold our coat from now until the next five or 15 years.”

The U.S. military, especially the U.S. Army, emerges as the source of much of the “ground truth” on Southwest Asia because they have lived and worked with a part of the Afghan population.  Many of Army’s finest have demonstrated not only battlefield bravery but a deep insight and compassion for the day-to-day challenges faced by civilians living in the midst of uncivil war.  Look at the way Greg Mortenson, the inspirational builder of schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, describes the U.S. military in his new book, “Stones into Schools.”  According to one report:

Since April, Mortenson has facilitated more than 35 meetings in Afghanistan between local shura, or tribal leaders, and U.S. military commanders, including Gens. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command.  In those meetings, he says, more than 200 shura from dozens of provinces in Afghanistan conveyed that they want less military might and more brainpower from Americans in their push to rebuild after years of conflict. “They want us to know that it’s not just about fighting the Taliban but also about relationship-building with Afghan civilians and helping the Afghanis build schools and the infrastructure that they want and need.”

The United States, for reasons of national security, is trying urgently to defeat an insurgency in a region that is far away and vastly different from America.  It must convince a civilian population that it is on their side and at the same time push a local civilian government to take responsibility.  It has to find elusive terrorists without causing innocent loss of life.  Assuming that Obama has no choice but to try to do this, it is important that he learn quickly whether he stands any chance of success.