It's can be hard to be the White House press secretary--especially when you have to sell a tough war to a skeptical public that appears to be growing more skeptical. So in recent days, Robert Gibbs has had to talk around several key contradictions weighing down President Barack Obama's Afghanistan policy. First, he had to explain that the job in Afghanistan is critical to the security of the nation but that the Obama administration's commitment to the war is not open-ended. (If this is an essential war, then why not say you'll stick with it for as long as it takes?) Then this week, Gibbs confronted another dilemma.

At Monday's daily White House press briefing, he declared that pulling out of Afghanistan is "not a decision that's on the table" for President Obama. But how does that square with Gibbs' statement--made a few days earlier--that the Obama administration can only succeed in Afghanistan if it has a partner there that "is free of corruption and transparent"? After all, the Kabul government is not transparent and free of corruption. As I noted at MotherJones.com, the Obama administration is presenting conflicting notions: that it will stay with this war and that it cannot triumph if the Afghan government and its security forces are not effective, competent and honest.

Q: One thing I don't understand, Robert, on Afghanistan, last week-

GIBBS: Just one? (Laughter.)

Q: Well, one big thing-but thank you for reminding me that there's more than one. (Laughter.)

GIBBS: I was going to say, if you've narrowed it down to only one, maybe you should come to the [next White House Afghanistan strategy] meeting.

Q: Happy to. (Laughter.)

GIBBS: I understand from April apparently you've got to walk a long way away [around the White House, due to anti-war protesters] to get to the-(laughter.)

Q: I'll make the sacrifice. (Laughter.) Last week you said that it was clear from-

GIBBS: I'm sorry, who said?

Q: You said-

GIBBS: Okay.

Q: -from that podium that last-that for there to be success in Afghanistan, you needed a partner that was free of corruption, and transparent. Now you've also said today that pulling out of Afghanistan is just not on the table, not under consideration. Well, what do you do then if you don't have a partner that's free of corruption and transparent? Because right now that seems to be a very open question about the government in Afghanistan.

GIBBS: Well, look, you have to ensure, as we dedicate more resources, that you have that type of partner; that actions are taken to ensure that there's confidence and credibility. I think many of us read the story today about-from -I think it's from-my numbers may be a tad off on this, but from 2002 to 2008, two generals in Pakistan mentioned that of the six, more than-a little bit more than $6 billion that was to go to aid the Pakistani army, approximately $500 million reached its intended target. I don't think it's any wonder that our efforts, particularly based on aiding the Pakistan army over that time period, was seen as not altogether very successful-and now we know why. We have to ensure that we have a partner that is capable of partnering with us as we go through this.

Gibbs was illustrating the problem at hand: "I'm simply using an example in a region of what happens when you don't have a partner that is an effective partner and willing to do what has to be done to make progress." But another reporter asked, "It sounds like you're stuck with an ineffective partner. If you can't pull out and you've got a bad partner, what do you do?" That's what's in the nutshell. Gibbs replied:

You take steps to make sure that your partner is ready, willing, and able to assist in a way that is effective and matches, through their effort, the resources that you're dedicating to deal with this problem. I use that example because in many ways for that six-year or seven-year period of time, nothing was done.

By this point, other reporters in the White House press room were on the scent. And one asked the obvious follow-up:

Q: Well, then are we doomed to more problems with Karzai because he's not transparent or not cooperating or corrupt?

GIBBS: ...I think-I think that we are clearly going to have to take actions to ensure that everybody is working collectively to get this right. We-no amount of additional American resources that are siphoned off and not going to the problem that they're directed at, no increase or amount is going to fix a problem if those resources ultimately don't get to where they're going.

There was more back and forth on this point. But the key matter had been covered: how can the Obama administration ensure that there's a decent government and an effective security force in Afghanistan? That's a question the White House cannot answer. And, unfortunately, it's much too reminiscent of a question asked during the Vietnam debacle. Eventually Obama's going to have to confront this thorny dilemma, whether he sends more troops or not. It's the hole at the center of his Afghanistan policy.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter. You can read his original posting on this particular Gibbs briefing here.