Most people expect an imminent decision from the President on his Afghanistan policy. The President has said that he’s close, although there’s a likelihood that it won’t happen this week.

What we know now is pretty interesting. First, Obama specifically said in interviews this week that he didn’t want to leave the issue of Afghanistan to a successor.

Mr Obama said he did not want his successor as president to inherit the Afghan conflict, adding that a “multi-year occupation” would not serve US interests.

The US president made his comments during his trip to Asia, in interviews with NBC News, CNN and CBS News.

That’s pretty notable, considering that counter-insurgency strategy dictates… a multi-year commitment, indeed an occupation. Indeed, in separate remarks he said that whatever strategy he chose would “put us on a path toward ending the war.”

Another notable piece is that Obama would fire leakers who have dribbled out information about the decision-making process.

Reid says he asked the president if he’s as angry as Defense Secretary Robert Gates about all the leaks coming out of his administration about the Afghanistan decision.

“I think I’m angrier than Bob Gates about it,” Mr. Obama replied. “We have deliberations in the situation room for a reason; we’re making life and death decisions that affect how our troops are able to operate in a theater of war. For people to be releasing info in the course of deliberations is not appropriate.”

“A firing offense?” Reid inquired.

“Absolutely,” Mr. Obama responded.

To this I would say simply: Rahm Emanuel, call your office.

Finally, Obama had extremely little good to say about Hamid Karzai:

Obama gave only lukewarm support for Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, whose recent re-election was tainted by fraud and who has been widely criticised for failing to tackle rampant corruption.

“He has some strengths, but he has some weaknesses,” said Obama. “I’m less concerned about any individual than I am with a government as a whole that is having difficulty providing basic services to its people.”

You add all this up, and it doesn’t look like the picture of someone about to expand into a lasting military commitment in service to a central government viewed as corrupt (and getting more so). And Obama appears extremely miffed that forces inside the Pentagon or his own White House are trying to force him into one decision or another.

The most unexplored reason for the so-called “dithering” over Afghanistan is that the forces for an escalation are simply not available. This has been exacerbated by the apparent collapse of the election law in Iraq and the unwillingness to remove troops from that conflict until April or May. There’s also the long-term financial costs to continue the commitment.

UPDATE: We will not see an answer on troops until after Thanksgiving, per the White House.