This past weekend was a strategic wake-up call in Afghanistan: 16 U.S. service members were killed there, including eight in a pitched battle with the Taliban, in the first four days of October, equaling the number killed in October 2008.

Meanwhile, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the counterinsurgency specialist President Obama chose to lead the war in Afghanistan, turned in, as he had been asked to do, his strategic review and plan for fighting that war.

That was Aug. 31, and the plan is still under review by the White House, even though Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. David Petraeus, McChrystal's boss at Central Command, have endorsed it.

McChrystal's plan calls for 40,000 more U.S. troops and moving the forces from remote bases, like the one that was attacked Saturday, to population centers where they can better protect the Afghan people. And it makes sense in that the Taliban doesn't seem to have any popular support other than what they can command by fear.

Obama has a problem with diminishing support in Congress and among the public for a war that he earlier deemed a strategic necessity - although it's impossible to tell what he thinks of it now. He also has a problem because Vice President Biden has a plan of his own for Afghanistan, calling for a less visible U.S. presence and heavy use of drones and Special Forces for targeted attacks on the Taliban leadership. The problem with "remote-control push-button" wars like the one envisioned by Biden is that without troops on the ground garnering "intel," it's near impossible to obtain reliable information about where the terrorists are at a given time so that they can be bombed. Meanwhile, Obama continues to sit on McChrystal's proposal.

During his presidential run last year, Obama described Afghanistan as the war we could not afford to lose. Now that responsibility for it is on his shoulders, he appears to be waffling.

McChrystal, perhaps understandably impatient, told a London think tank, "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will the public support it." In other words, time's a-wasting.

And he was asked if he would support a Biden-like plan. "The short answer is: No."

So bully to McChrystal for "telling truth to power."

The speech caused a stir, as did the disclosure that McChrystal had talked to Obama just once, by videoconference, since taking over in Afghanistan. The general was summoned to Copenhagen, where Obama was making his unsuccessful bid for the Olympics, and the two met for 25 minutes on the tarmac aboard Air Force One. It was reportedly a very pointed exchange.

Perhaps Obama is only being cautious and methodical in his decision whether to widen or narrow the war - but the more likely explanation is political indecision on Obama's part and a worrisome sign that his Afghanistan policy is adrift.