Speaking of Afghanistan, CNN reports another mini-escalation in the works:

As many as 2,000 additional troops — including a number of U.S. forces — may be headed to Afghanistan in the coming weeks under a plan being proposed by Gen. David Petraeus, CNN has learned [...]

According to the NATO source, it calls for an additional 2,000 troops including at least 750 personnel to serve as trainers for Afghan forces. The trainers specifically would work to teach Afghan units how to support their operations in the field. The balance of the forces would work largely to counter the still significant threat posed by improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

Another NATO official tells CNN “it’s highly likely” many of the additional forces will be U.S. troops. Some NATO member countries are politically ambivalent about the war, he noted. And practically, it is only U.S. forces that have the most advanced equipment to counter roadside bombs.

No other country plans to send in troops at this stage. We have a Coalition of the One in Afghanistan, for all intents and purposes.

Keep this in mind that roadside bombs didn’t exist in Afghanistan for years following the invasion and occupation. Neither did suicide bombers. These are outsourced innovations from Iraq, the terrorist training ground we inadvertently created by invading in 2003.

Yes, this is a small increase, but it points the direction of the mission upward toward more escalation, apparently authorized by a back-door allotment of 3,000 extra troops in the initial 30,000-troop escalation. And then there’s this little buried lede:

A U.S. military official also confirms that in recent weeks the discussion of the “withdrawal” of forces from certain areas of Afghanistan beginning in July 2011 has taken a bit of a twist.

The official said the withdrawal in some areas will signify that those areas may be turned over to Afghan control, but that may not mean troops will come home. The latest options call for taking those troops not needed and sending them to other areas where security is still poor.

That’s not a withdrawal, that’s a reshuffle. And the trajectory stays upward.

Joe Klein, who does have the sources on this stuff, sees a clash coming between the Administration and the military. He thinks Petraeus will try to delay or divert the planned December review of the Afghanistan policy:

Here’s what to watch for now: The Administration wants to keep Afghanistan on the back burner for the next two months, until after the election. The military is playing a different hand. It will try, via a surreptitious media strategy, to get the President to delay any policy review, to give a new vote of confidence to a failing and deeply flawed, in my view, war strategy [...] In short, there will be an effort to portray the President as an indecisive, non-military wimp. There will be an effort to get him to back off his July 2011 date for the beginning of the transition to Afghan “control.” There may even be a request for more troops. All this will happen in the midst of a political campaign that may well prove devastating for Democrats. This is a test of strength that Obama can’t afford to lose. A major review of Afghan strategy is necessary–in fact, it’s needed right now. A major change in strategy, given the outrageous incompetence and corruption of the Karzai government. It is time to downgrade the importance of Afghanistan, and focus on trying to meliorate the real problem in the region–the enduring emnity between Pakistan and India.

“Crisis” barely begins to cover it. But with the midterms looming as a point of leverage for the military, you can certainly see how they will exploit it. Meanwhile, Karzai is holding another peace jirga designed to foster reconciliation with the Taliban. Sounds like a good time to get out.