A US Marine shakes hands with a local boy in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, 05 Oct 2009Now that Hamid Karzai has been declared the winner of Afghanistan'spresidential elections, attention is again focused on U.S. PresidentBarack Obama's decision on whether to send more troops to the country. Analysts and some members of the U.S. Congress are still at odds overthe best way forward.

It has been more than two months since thetop U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal,submitted his report calling for an urgent and significant change instrategy regarding the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal isreported to have requested 40,000 more troops to mount acounterinsurgency campaign designed to provide security for the Afghanpeople.

The general says failure to gain the initiative andreverse the momentum currently held by the insurgents in the next 12months could lead to the failure of the overall mission.

Max Boot is a senior fellow for national security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

"Weare committed to a war in Afghanistan," he said. "I think the questionnow is are we going to be committed to winning it? Or are we going tojust muddle along as we have currently been doing with enough troops togenerate casualties on all sides, but not enough to win."

Analystsagree that a successful counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistanrequires a credible government that is seen as legitimate by the Afghanpeople, and widespread irregularities in the recent Afghan electionundercut the process.

Many expect the United States will now tryto bolster the credibility of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, pushingfor anti-corruption measures and an inclusive government.

U.S.Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry says the conclusion of theelection process is a new opportunity for the international communityto work with Afghan leaders.

"And very serious efforts made and very serious progress made in trying to improve theaccountability of the government," he said. "Really fight the problemof corruption take it head-on and deal with it. And we, theinternational community, we have role to play in this."

U.S. Institute of Peace analyst Alex Thier warns if troops arewithdrawn prematurely from Afghanistan the country will fall back intocivil war, the Taliban will take over part of the country and theentire region will be further destabilized.

"I think that thoseconsequences are so grim and grave for us, not to mention all of thethousands of Afghans that we have worked with to educate, femaleparliamentarians that we have got elected in the last year, girlsschools that we have built, all of this will go up in a puff of smokeand we will stand by and watch that," he said.

But there are powerful opponents in the U.S. Congress of any major troop increase in Afghanistan.

SenatorCarl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, saysbefore sending more U.S. combat troops, large numbers of additionalAfghan forces need to be trained.

"These soldiers constitutetheir country's most trusted public institution," he said. "Opinionpolls show that the Afghan army has the strong support of the Afghanpeople and is vastly more popular than the Taliban, whose support is insingle digits."

Senator Levin says he does not want U.S. soldiers to be seen as an occupying force in Afghanistan.

"Expansionof our own combat presence could feed a Taliban propaganda machine thatseeks to portray the forces arrayed against them, not as a home growndomestic effort to prevent the return of a detested extremist regime,which is what it is, but as the effort of a foreign occupier," he said.

WhenPresident Obama announced his Afghan strategy last March he said theclear American goal is to defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistanand to prevent their return to either country in the future.

Administrationofficials say the president's decision on General McChrystal's requestfor more troops is expected in the coming weeks.