Is President Obama really not feeling any political pressure from progressives on his looming decision to potentially send tens of thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan?

National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones (Ret.) insisted this morning on CNN's State of the Union that political pressure from Obama's progressive base has nothing to do with the President's decision on whether to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.

"The strategy does not belong to any political party," Jones said. "And I can assure you that the President of the United States is not playing to any political base."

Jones, seeming almost offended by the line of questioning, also said, "I don't play politics, and I certainly don't play it with national security."

Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, took a similar stance today. When asked on Meet the Press whether political pressure might be a factor in the troop decision, she said firmly: "Absolutely not."

Still, the question really doesn't seem to be whether Obama's feeling any political pressure from liberals on Afghanistan, but rather how big of a role it'll play in his deliberation over whether to grant Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for additional U.S. troops -- reportedly as many as 40,000 -- or to scale back forces and adopt a counterinsurgency strategy as Vice President Joe Biden is said to advocate.

House liberals are already taking action to stop the President from sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) introduced a bill last week that would "prohibit any increase in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan."

The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on Armed Services, has 21 cosponsors -- almost all of them from the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The President may also face hurdles among Democrats in the Senate. On Face the Nation today, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) -- chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee -- stuck to the stance he took in a floor speech in September, saying that "what we need a surge of is Afghan troops" rather than U.S. forces.

Meanwhile, the lawmakers getting behind a troop increase aren't traditional Obama supporters. Republicans -- who seem to generally support Gen. McChrystal's request for more troops -- used news of a deadly Taliban assault that killed eight U.S. troops as an example Sunday of why Obama ought to send reinforcements.

"Without reinforcing our troops, you're gonna hear more of what happened today," warned Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Fox News Sunday, adding that "the Taliban are gonna win if we don't change course soon."

Graham also said that a shift to a "counter terrorism strategy" in Afghanistan would be "the biggest strategic blunder post 9/11." And this of U.S. troops:

"They're sitting ducks. They need to be reinforced."

Over on CNN, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said members of the Obama administration should stop "being armchair generals" and act decisively in agreeing to what Gen. McChrystal recommends.

Jones said Obama plans to meet twice this week with top advisers on Afghanistan, and expects to make a decision on troops and strategy within a matter of weeks. It's difficult to predict what he'll decide -- and perhaps even more difficult to see how he'll avoid either angering liberal Democrats or ignoring the well-publicized advice of his hand-picked general.