Where is the Calvery?

I hear from the present administration that we need to hurry on a number of vital issues; such TARP,  The Stimulus Plan,  and  Health Care. It has even been stated that we dont even have time to read the legislation, and these programs must be expedited because the consequences are so dire. (OMG Hurry!)

But, when our military commanders on the ground request more troops the administration demands caution  and review.  Why the hem-hawing?  I ask what is the risk of sending more troops?  What am I missing?

I ask, what are the risks to national security, my men, and stability in the region.  What is the down side of too many troops, but I am thinking like a military person.

But Obama is not thinking this way.  I have yet to fully understand his line of thinking, rational, or logic but I am gaining some insight. In his recent pitch to the Olympic committee he used the word I about a gazillion times (actually I think it was in the twenties). This is unheard of for a US President and for most leaders too.  Most leaders rarely refer to themselves, and if they do, they do it in such a way as to minimize their individuality and to maintain focus on the team.  For example "I want this mission to succeed" vs "This commander wants this mission to succeed"  The over use of the word I by Obama is very telling.  It reveals a narcissism and self importance that would be comical if it wasn't so chilling at the same time. 

So the real questions are:
What is the risk to Obama in sending more troops? 
What mission will be jeopardized?
What are Obama true goals.

I am not sure what the answers are but the result is delay, and delay means the loss of initiative.  With the loss of initiative we become forced to react to our enemy,  we get put on a defencive/reactive posture, and that leads to Allied solders, Afghan security, and civilian lives as well as a campaign lost.

Related Story: White House angry at General Stanley