Can a leaked cable change a war?

That may have happened this week. On Wednesday, after President Obama held his eighth White House strategy session on Afghanistan and rejected all four options put before him (each calling for an increase of U.S. troops there), The Washington Post disclosed the existence of two classified cables recently sent to Washington by the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. In these memos, Eikenberry said he was skeptical about dispatching more American soldiers until the corrupt and inept government of President Hamid Karzai demonstrates it's taking steps to become less corrupt and less inept.

Immediately, the Afghanistan policy debate -- in which there are no easy answers -- was reshaped. This was a reset.

In recent weeks, the debate within the administration has appeared to be over how many more troops should be deployed to Afghanistan, not whether additional forces should be poured into that war zone. And outside the administration, the discourse was dominated by players -- such as Sen. John McCain -- who were calling on Obama to okay the request of Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces, who had asked for 40,000 more troops. Legislators and policy wonks expressing concerns about expanding the war were hardly in the spotlight, even as they raised serious questions about waging a war in a country run by an untrustworthy and hapless government.

Meanwhile, the Obama White House has bounced back and forth on this crucial question. During one White House briefing in early October, I asked press secretary Robert Gibbs:

He replied, "I don't think you could find anybody with any international expertise that didn't strongly believe that you had to have a willing partner to make anything succeed in Afghanistan." He added that the United States requires "a willing partner . . . that is free of corruption and transparent."

The Karzai government in Kabul certainly did not fit that description. It seemed as if Gibbs was foreshadowing a possible escape clause for the administration. After all, if the Afghan government is too corrupt to work with, Obama could justify a decision to reduce or narrow -- or not expand -- the war effort there.

Yet last week, the White House took a different tack. After Karzai's chief challenger pulled out of a run-off election because massive fraud was expected, Gibbs essentially defended the political process in Afghanistan. He said there was no reason to believe that Karzai's reelection was not fully legitimate. He refused to accept a reporter's depiction of Karzai as "a guy who is not credible, not reliable, and running a corrupt government." Gibbs also said that he assumed the parliamentary and district elections scheduled next year would be free and fair. Had the White House made the calculation that it was going to stick with Karzai? This briefing showed that to do so the administration would have to deny on-the-ground realities -- at least in public.

But the leak of the Eikenberry cables signals a shift. Everyone who follows these things in Washington assumes that the White House let loose his reports. I heard one Post reporter describe the paper's sources for this story as Obama political allies. Why would Obama aides (or allies) want Eikenberry's secret cables to be public? By leaking them, they have broadened the debate. No longer is the discussion focused on the size of the additional deployment of troops -- whether Obama should send 20,000, 30,000, or 40,000. Now there are two clear and diametrically opposed sides: send more troops, or don't send more troops. One side is represented by McChrystal; the other by Eikenberry, a retired three-star general who previously commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan. In other words, pick your general.

The Eikenberry cables create more space for Obama -- policy-wise and politically. If Obama does not want to order more troops to Afghanistan, Eikenberry gives him cover. (Can a president send extra troops to a country when his ambassador there says they won't do much good?) Republican and neoconservative hawks will howl if Obama decides not to boost U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But with Eikenberry concluding that the investment is not a solid one, Obama will be better able to repel the attacks from the right. And if Obama elects to send a small additional detachment to Afghanistan, he and his aides can maintain that they are opting for a middle course between the McChrystal position and the Eikenberry stance.

White House officials are still saying that Obama's decision is coming soon -- probably later this month, after he returns from his trip to Asia. Not too long ago, it seemed that he was basically deciding between numbers. With the leak of the Eikenberry memos, there's reason to believe the president and his aides are wondering whether any more troops can make a difference.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/13/do-leaked-cables-mean-obama-is-rethinking-afghanistan/