This morning’s WaPo carries an interesting story about a potential shift in emphasis in South Asia. Now that the Defense Department has as Secretary who stands on his hind legs, the uniformed services have found the courage to stand up (ever so slightly) to Mr Bu$h.

With violence on the decline in Iraq but on the upswing in Afghanistan, President Bush is facing new pressure from the U.S. military to accelerate a troop drawdown in Iraq and bulk up force levels in Afghanistan, according to senior U.S. officials.

Administration officials said the White House could start to debate the future of the American military commitment in both Iraq and Afghanistan as early as next month. Some Pentagon officials are urging a further drawdown of forces in Iraq beyond that envisioned by the White House, which is set to reduce the number of combat brigades from 20 to 15 by the end of next summer. At the same time, commanders in Afghanistan are looking for several additional battalions, helicopters and other resources to confront a resurgent Taliban movement.

The withdrawal mentioned is of course the tail end of Generalissmo Field Marshal Kagan’s famous surge escalation, which apparently might have actually had some effect on violence. The constant combatant pressure on insurgency may have caused the resistance to pull in its horns, at least temporarily. This, coupled with the providential “Anbar Awakening” has given the impression that, at long last, all the wishes and hopes of the never-right will come to fruition.

No one seems to have given any thought to the possibility that maybe the resistance is just marking time, until the drawdown begins. Iraq is – or was - a pretty modern nation. They’ve had calendars and newspapers for more than a couple of years, and they understand all about US national elections, and they understand that all this drawdown talk is all about the next election, like everything else the Bu$h malAdministration does.

Bush's decisions on Iraq and Afghanistan could heavily influence his ability to pass on to his successor stable situations in both countries, an objective his advisers describe as one of the president's paramount goals for his final year in office. They say Bush will listen closely to his military commanders on the ground before making any decisions on troops but is unlikely to do anything he believes could jeopardize recent, hard-won security improvements in Iraq.

Administration officials say the White House has become more concerned in recent months about the situation in Afghanistan, where grinding poverty, rampant corruption, poor infrastructure and the growing challenge from the Taliban are hindering U.S. stabilization efforts. Senior administration officials now believe Afghanistan may pose a greater longer-term challenge than Iraq.

The Bu$h malAdministration cares not a whit about grinding poverty, rampant corruption, and poor infrastructure, but the uniformed services do. Helmand Province continues to be a serious problem in Afghanistan. The recent battle for Musa Qala highlights a significant development: the strength of Taliban in the region and the failure of the US Government to prosecute the real war.

The battle of Musa Qala involved more than 8,000 combat troops from the US, NATO and the Afghan Army. This is close to the effective combat power of a full division. It took them the better part of a month to fight their way through a sophisticated defensive belt of mines, booby traps, fortified bunkers, machine gun posts and anti-aircraft gun positions defended by an estimated 2,000 Taliban. The G’s captured Musa Qala in February, and held the town ever since, using it as an expeditionary base, sending units out to other areas in order to distract NATO attention. It was also claimed the town was a drug-smuggling center and this is quite possible, since opium poppy production is reportedly higher than in past years.

Staging raiding and diversion parties from a central point is a classic use of second-level guerrilla forces, and the Western allies were unable to mount a proper offense until late this year, as British forces that had formerly been committed to Iraq became available. There were reports that artillery had been used to break through the defensive belt.

When you have to use artillery you’re not dealing with guerrillas. You’re fighting main force troops. And when you have to concentrate a division’s worth of troops from three countries in order to capture a town held by your enemy for almost a year a wise strategist would re-think his planning.

Since there are a finite number of US troops available to fight Mr Bu$h’s ego-war in Iraq and the real war in Afghanistan, there has been pressure to draw in the forces in Iraq, centering on the jewel in the crown, Baghdad and the Green Zone, and stationing troops in the “enduring bases” rather than actively seeking combat against the resistance in the provinces.

CAMP VICTORY, IRAQ -- In a change of plans, American commanders in Iraq have decided to keep their forces concentrated in Baghdad when the buildup strategy ends next year, removing troops instead from outlying areas of the country.

The change represents the military's first attempt to confront its big challenge in 2008: how to cut the number of troops without sacrificing security.

Actually, the military’s real challenge is how to slow down the decline in Iraq in order to take the violence off the news horizon and enable the Republicans to claim a great victory before the 2008 elections. It’s going to be interesting to see how the ideologues who have risen to influential positions in the Army react to a Democratic President and a Congress with a greater Democratic majority. I know if I were the strategist advising the new President I’d be recommending an immediate cashiering of about 80 or 90 generals and about 100 colonels.

Let’s get some uniforms in there that actually respect democracy and the US Constitution.

A year ago, when U.S. patrols in Baghdad were sparse and sectarian killings were spiraling out of control, President Bush proposed a troop buildup in part to establish order in the capital. Over the last four months, violence in the capital has begun to abate.

But the most significant improvements have been in outlying areas, where the first of about 28,500 additional troops arrived in February, followed by gradual improvements in Baghdad. Military planners at first thought it would be the other way around.

"There was a sense we would focus very significantly on Baghdad and change would come from Baghdad out," said a senior military official in Washington, who like others spoke on condition of anonymity when discussing troop strategy. "What we are seeing is just the opposite, it is probably outside-in, toward Baghdad."

Unspoken in this quote is the fact that the outer provinces, especially Anbar, are strongly Sunni. The capital is heavily Shiite. Prime Minister Maliki’s government, while ostensibly a coalition, is primarily Shiite within the ministries.

If we’re banking on change from the outer areas, are we actually expecting a renewal of the civil war?

UPDATE: Bernhard, who's always worth reading, believes the change in strategy presages a planned regime change in Baghdad.