AfPak attacks show 'US progress'

Sanderson said recent attacks in AfPak don't necessarily mean a setback for Obama in that region.

Instead, he argued, the attacks probably show that "Obama's policies are working well enough that caused the enemy to strike harder because they are losing."

"I think the violence we are seeing there is a result of increased U.S. efforts against Taliban. This is a clear-cut example of the group reacting violently in the face of more aggressive American and Pakistani operation," the expert said.

In fact, the bombings are expected to happen because the U.S. military is "making progress against Taliban and we will not move back simply because they respond with bombings," according to him.

Sanderson acknowledged that heavy civilian casualties caused by these attacks would be a concern for the United States, for it is "of great propaganda value" to Taliban.

What the U.S. military would do, is to "continue to strike and continue to minimize civilian casualty."

But "we will not stop, nor the Pakistanis, stop the campaign against insurgents even there is civilian casualties," said Sanderson.

Two factors for troop decision

As some U.S. observers began to worry if Obama could end up in Afghanistan like how his predecessor fared in Iraq, Sanderson said that is not the case.

Although U.S. public support for Afghan war is eroding, the expert said he doesn't think "that is at the point where you have it in Iraq."

"Afghanistan is the place where al-Qaida is based and where they coordinated on the 9/11 attacks. So for Americans there is a very distinct legitimate reason for fighting in Afghanistan," he said.

"I think that would sustain and war effort in Afghanistan will continue for quite a bit time," said the expert.

Two factors will affect Obama's pending decision on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, according to him.

"Number one, if the president believes that the Pakistani military will meet with significant success against insurgents."

"Number two, if he believes the Afghan election will bring some legitimacy to the Afghan government."

If both happens, "then he will commit very significant number of additional forces, at least 25,000," said Sanderson.

If only one goal is met, he believes the troop increase will be below 5,000.

If both fall short, "I think the president will have a very legitimate reason for minimizing the increase of troops to Afghanistan," according to the expert.

But in any cases, he believes that there will be a heavy emphasis on sending trainers to more rapidly develop the Afghan army "because it is where the stakes are."