Is Barack Obama having second thoughts about his promised 'surge' in Afghanistan? Yesterday he announced he was going to send 12,000 more combat troops and 5,000 back-ups to Afghanistan to support the 33,000 US troops already serving, some with a combined NATO force. But this is a far cry from the 30,000 requested by US commanders and believed to have been planned by Obama prior to his election. Some of these new troops will be redeployed from Iraq as the US reduces forces there. But incoming US presidents rapidly discover that they can't do everything they want, which is just as true of current troop deployments as it is of companies wanting their share of the bail-out begging bowl. Obama is also no doubt aware that the US military are quick to hit incoming presidents with demands for more forces, John Kennedy agreed a sudden increase in US 'advisers' to South Vietnam which rapidly turned into a US army on the ground, with disastrous consequences of course. It has probably also dawned on him that his European 'allies', including the UK, are unwilling to increase their commitment to Afghanistan, a war most of them now regard as unwinnable, however much they want to grandstand as Obama's friend. The surge worked in Iraq but that was because it was mostly aimed at foreign fighters and their allies and the policy eventually commanded the agreement of local tribal bosses who wanted the foreigners out. But the Taliban in Afghanistan are entrenched on the border with Pakistan, where nearly all of them come from, and they aren't going anywhere, however many US troops there are. So it looks as though Obama is trying to stabilise things while he secures a change of government in Kabul that can negotiate some kind of settlement or at least stand-off with the Taliban. Not very glorious perhaps but realistic. And that's a relief.