The leak, posted on a website known as Wikileaks, came at a time when the White House is facing pressure from an increasingly war-weary public to make sure it is on track with the handover of security duties to Afghan forces.

    Among other things, the documents point to a high level of Afghan civilian casualties, prompting human rights organization Amnesty International on Monday to call for a more coherent system for dealing with civilian deaths.

    Some experts argue those issues have been rectified -- the U.S. Army has taken steps to limit civilian deaths including the implementation of rules prohibiting U.S. forces from shooting before taking fire, which were put in place by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

    But his successor, Gen. David Petraeus, is under pressure to ease those restrictions, as they are seen as hindering U.S. combat effectiveness.

    Still, the WikiLeaks' expose should not be used to argue that Washington's strategy is doomed to fail, some experts argued.

    "The U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has been refined over the last year and new U.S. troops and civilian resources are pouring into the country," said Lisa Curtis, senior research fellow on South Asia at the Heritage Foundation.

    But two incidents this month in which Afghan soldiers shot dead two U.S. civilian trainers and three British troops have raised questions about loyalty within the Afghan army's rank and file.

    Dex Torricke-Barton, a security consultant for the United Nations, said many are not being properly vetted.

    "What we are seeing is the result of the pressure that is being put on U.S. trainers and the U.S. army to expand the size of the Afghan army very quickly," he said.

    Such incidents also demonstrate the ease with which the Taliban is able to recruit members of what he said was Afghanistan's underfunded army.

    The surge has shifted the war's momentum and destroying the Taliban now trumps winning Afghan hearts and minds, which has led to riskier tactics and increased civilian casualties, he contended.

    "That has a radicalizing effect on the soldiers who are joining the Afghan security forces," he said.

    "These are people who have friends and family in these towns and villages and these places simply cannot be treated as though they are a battleground."

    Heavy reliance on air power and drone strikes has damaged many communities and is causing many civilian casualties, he said.

    There is also a danger of Afghan soldiers switching sides for reasons other than radicalization, such as the perception that the Taliban is winning.

    The U.S. withdrawal plan is based on the assumption that the surge, which is often compared to the one in Iraq, will work, he said.

    But whereas Iraq boasts much infrastructure and a high rate of literacy, Afghanistan is an impoverished country with a largely illiterate population and a highly complex tribal structure, he said.

    The bulk of U.S. and NATO ground forces will likely leave by 2014 -- the deadline at which Karzai promised to ready his forces -- but the country could end up resembling a post-Soviet invasion period, which left a power vacuum that the Taliban later filled, he contended.

    Corruption in the security forces is another major problem.

    "High ranking government officials are all from one tribe or clan and once the security handover takes place, all the funds will be spent in one part of the country, while other parts may suffer," said Noori Zabihullah, an independent Afghan journalist based in Mazar-i- Sharif, Afghanistan.

    And while Afghans regard their army as capable, the police are widely considered corrupt, with district level police chiefs appointed based on personal connections, he said.

    "Traffic police chiefs are the same, simply because they can make lots of money by issuing vehicle registration documents and driving licenses," he said via email.

    U.S. chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Admiral Mike Mullen, however, called the 2014 deadline "reasonable," adding that he remained optimistic that the U.S. surge will thwart the Taliban, drawing a comparison with the U.S. surge in Iraq.

    The 2014 deadline does not mean Afghanistan will get rid of all of its military partners, said Anthony H. Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

    Iraq' s government, he noted, took over responsibility in many areas more than a year before U.S. forces began to seriously withdraw.

    "This transition is one where you don't abandon the government and say 'sorry we' re leaving, regardless of whether you have the experience and capability to be ready.' "

    Setting up facilities, partnering and training new units takes time. "You don't suddenly create an instant army," he said.