Three nights ago, President Barack Obama told the American people why he was sending more of our brothers and sisters into harm’s way in Afghanistan.  In the days since, few have offered whole-hearted support for his stated reasons.

It’s often said that a decision pissing off both sides in any controversy is probably a good one.  I’m not sure that sentiment applies in this instance, though.

The more progressive element in the Democratic party didn’t want more troops sent, and in fact, wanted to bring those already there home.  The Republicans, who oppose anything and everything from the White House anyway, took their shots at the announcement of a withdrawal target date.  Let’s turn the politics off for a moment, though, and see if we can figure out what the President did say and what it all means on the ground.

The 30,000 additional troops are being sent to re-enforce the more populated areas of Afghanistan.   The next 18 months will be spent in these efforts, with the idea in mind to let the Afghans assume an ever-increasing responsibility for that populated area security and then get out of town.

The desired effect of this plan is to force the bullets and blood to the more rural areas of the country, out in the sticks of Afghanistan, and away from the major population areas and seats of government.  The hope is this will marginalize the reach of the Taliban, and thus its ability to harbor Al Queda.

It is to be remembered that Al Queda does not have its own country, its own sovereignty.  It can exist wherever a few of its most ardent and evil apostles can gather for a cup of tea and plan to shed non-believer blood.  So, all things considered, it really doesn’t need Afghanistan, or the Taliban hosting.

Afghanistan’s attraction to Al Queda has been its geographical impenetrability and rough terrain, its tribalism, and its resistance to even 18th century advancements in all things “civilized.”  Its proximity to  Pakistan, though, is its other major attraction, for Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

That, more than any geographically strategic value, is the attraction of Afghanistan.  Al Queda’s proximity to nuclear weapons so long as it is based in the border regions between the two countries is the concern, and if there is a reason to remain, if not up the ante, in Afghanistan, it is that.

Nation building?  Saving the Afghan people from the Taliban tyranny?  Stabilizing what appears to be a corrupt government?  These are not reasons to send more troops, to risk more American lives, to spend billions more at a time when those billions are needed at home. Keeping nuclear weapons out of their hands?  Perhaps, but wouldn’t a stronger alliance with Pakistan accomplish the same goal?

It still begs the questions for what purpose and to what end.   The President did not answer those questions sufficiently, did not make the case solidly, did not defend his decision adequately, on Tuesday evening. So far, no one in the Obama government has, either.

There are other questions, too.  Does the President truly believe the Afghan government is worth saving?  Does he truly believe it will ever be able to take care of itself?  Do another 18 months and 30,000 troops truly mean the difference?  Pakistan is always going to have nuclear weapons, and soon Iran will, too.  Consequently, is it really 18 months?  Or 24 months? or 48 months?

We are left only with hope.  Hope that the President knows something we do not.  Hope that the President has privately given orders to his military leaders that have more flesh on them than his speech gave to his decision.  Hope that the cost in lives of our brothers and sisters is minimal.  Hope that our troops truly do come home in 18 months.

And, hope that the extra troop buildup is intended merely to make it safe to bring everyone home, that they are being sent only to ensure a complete withdrawal, to watch the backs of those already there until they can board the planes to leave.

Otherwise, they should not be sent.  Tom Friedman is right.