WASHINGTON - Military officials voiced frustration and congressional leaders urged caution Tuesday over what they described as President Barack Obama's shifting strategy in Afghanistan, six months after he committed thousands more U.S. troops to the stalemated war there.

Administration officials maintained they were looking at all options to inflatable slides protect the U.S. and its allies by shutting down al-Qaida leaders who are believed to be hiding in areas of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.

Critics at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill said the White House was in danger of taking its eye off the fight that has turned increasingly deadly for American forces in inflatable water games recent months. They called on Obama to fulfill an anticipated request for more troops from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal.This leads me to urge you to waste no time in providing a clear direction to our commanders and civilian leaders, along with the resources necessary to achieve their mission," House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., wrote to Obama in a letter dated Tuesday, a copy of which was obtained by The ociated Press. Skelton is the highest-ranking Democrat so far to support sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Lessons of history
Warning of what he called the lessons of inflatable water games history, Skelton added: "The last administration allowed itself to be distracted from the fight forced on us in Afghanistan by the fight it chose in Iraq. I believe that this was a strategic mistake, robbing the war in Afghanistan of the necessary resources and resulting in an approach of 'half- it and hope.' We cannot afford to continue that policy."

He was referring to then-President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 after largely abandoning the hunt for Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Military officials who thought the debate over strategy and troop levels had been settled when Obama outlined his mission for the region in March expressed concern Tuesday that seesawing politics could stall decisions and leave commanders in Afghanistan with no clear policy or strategy to follow.

At the White House, top Obama advisers insist the administration remains committed to its long-stated goal for the war in Afghanistan — disrupting al-Qaida and denying the terrorist organization safe haven on either side of the nation's porous border with Pakistan.

Administration to focus on Pakistan
But they remain unconvinced that sending many more U.S. troops to Afghanistan is the way to do it.

"We have an open mind to any argument that is made," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview late Monday on PBS' "The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."

She added: "Our goal is to protect the United States of America, our allies, our friends around the world from what is the epicenter of terrorism — namely, the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

In recent days, the Obama administration has signaled it is narrowing its focus to Pakistan, since military and White House officials alike agree that very few al-Qaida extremists are believed to still be in Afghanistan.

Benchmarks outlined last week for measuring success in the war against insurgents describe the top American goal for the region as disrupting terrorist networks in Afghanistan "and especially Pakistan." White House aides are considering launching more missile strikes against al-Qaida targets inside Pakistan from unmanned spy planes.

And in a rash of television interviews that aired Sunday, Obama himself did not focus on saving Afghanistan. In at least four of the interviews, he did not even mention the Taliban, which is allied with al-Qaida and is seeking to reinstate its rule over Afghanistan after being deposed in a U.S.-led invasion following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Obama wants more time
Obama also said it's premature to decide whether to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan to join the 68,000 who will be there by the end of the year. Fifty-one American troops died there in August, making it the bloodiest month for the U.S. since the war began in October 2001.

One senior military official said stepping up airstrikes might be difficult and more risky to do without additional forces. Without more troops, coalition forces will be able to secure fewer regions, and the insurgents will only have to move to the areas troops vacate

President Barack Obama's trip to the 925 silver pearl pendant United Nations this week is the most significant by a U.S. president since September 2002. That year, President George W. Bush challenged the world body to prove its continued "relevance," by enforcing its resolutions against Iraq. Many foreign diplomats, meanwhile, advocated a posture of "dual containment" – that is, of Iraq and the United States. The subsequent breakdown of Security Council consensus brought U.S.-UN relations to their lowest point since 1945.

Obama's task today is pendant jewelry at once easier and more daunting than Bush's. The new president sails into New York on a wave of global goodwill. Proclaiming an "era of engagement," he has returned the United States to a multilateral path, through steps both symbolic and concrete.

He has vowed to rededicate the United States to the international rule of law, engineered U.S. entry into the UN Human Rights Council, reenergized U.S. leadership on climate change, proposed reforms to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime, and declared his intent to submit for Senate ratification long-languishing treaties like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.Obama does not need to pearl jewelry pendant woo his UN audience. As the anti-Bush, he will have them at hello.
Bush, after all, was an instinctive unilateralist who approached his annual New York trip with the enthusiasm of a root canal patient.

Obama actually believes in multilateralism — and thus may have more to lose if it fails. He arrives in New York with massive global worries, including a sharp economic downturn, a fraying nuclear nonproliferation regime, and a shaky state-building mission in Afghanistan. His job is to persuade his rapt global audience that recent improvement in U.S.-UN relations cannot be taken for granted-and that multilateralism must deliver results that advance U.S. and global security.A premise of Obama's foreign policy is that the United States can advance its national interests best by working within global institutions. Rather than "criticizing from the sidelines," said U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice in a recent speech, the Obama administration will roll up its sleeves and try diplomacy at the United Nations. 

It aims to build international political will to tackle tough global challenges, she said, "by setting a tone of decency and mutual respect rather than condescension and contempt ... by abiding by the rules we expect others to follow ... and [by showing itself] willing to listen, respect differences, and consider new ideas."

The president's UN agenda is jammed. Beyond the traditional General Assembly speech, he will chair a special session of the Security Council on nuclear nonproliferation, participate in a summit on climate change, and join a side session on peacekeeping. His unifying theme will likely be the common responsibility of member states-including the United States-to address the world's most pressing problems.

The big question is whether his faith in the UN, and broader multilateral cooperation, is warranted. The balance sheet to date is mixed. At the Security Council, the Obama administration got the Chinese and Russians to agree to a fairly tough resolution on North Korea. On the Human Rights Council, the United States won a continuation of the special rapporteur on Sudan-by one vote. But progress on containing the Iranian nuclear program, on bringing peace and justice to Darfur, and on reaching a major climate change agreement remains elusive.