IMHO the General's report is both candid and accurate. I'm no military strategist but I do spend a lot of time in that country (and have done for the past few years).
The bottom line? NATO is doing the best it can -- with FAR too few people on the ground. And the prime reason for that is that most (if not all) NATO countries are not able or not motivated to provide more troops and equipment. Though the politicians won't publicly admit it, they know that the number of troops needed to "eliminate" the Taliban is likely five to ten times what are in country now. The game: NATO pushes the Taliban out of "Village A" or "Area A" in a province. Within weeks -- or even days -- NATO troops must leave to accomplish the same task in another area. So the Taliban immediately return to Village A or Area A. As long as there aren't enough troops to hold the ground already taken, the game will remain thus.
The irony is that as time goes on, countries become less committed to the cause, so the chances of any sort of "win" for NATO decrease too, because there is less chance of any significant increase in resources.
Whatever the reason, once one decides to fight, one must put everything one has into that fight. To do less -- to commit oneself halfway -- is horribly unfair to all those men and women in uniform -- and to the woman and children of Afghanistan. If you know you aren't going to win the battle with the mandate and resources you have, then it's criminal to continue. Either commit to it or (sadly, IMHO) get out.
grizz