Only NATO’s defense ministers know for sure the specifics of what’s been hashed out in their meetings this week in Europe. But from all public accounts, it appears they found themselves with a menu of no good choices.

NATO, and specifically its members that make up the International Security Assistance Force, must work to detail how they’ll hand over control of the decade-long Afghan war to Afghanistan’s own troops and police, as well as determine how – or whether – Afghanistan can afford to sustain it.

For years, the U.S. and its European allies have heavily subsidized the growing Afghan army and police, with the goal of training them to one day assume sole responsibility for their own security. But Afghanistan is too poor to afford the manpower, training, and equipment it has fielded with the help of the West. So where will its Afghan National Security Forces get the money? What will ISAF do once it has given up the „lead?”

After a day of meetings, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told reporters there was no decision.

„I think we all acknowledged that this is an area that we have to continue to discuss and to have consultation on as to what that roles will be, what missions we have to implement at that time,” he said. „So that’s something that we’ll continue to be discussing with our NATO partners as we move towards [this May’s summit in] Chicago. We’ll also be discussing ‘how do we sustain the ANSF with international support.’  You know, funding the size of the ANSF is something that we also felt that we had to continue to discuss and consult on.”

U.S. lawmakers have asked Pentagon leaders for years how Afghanistan could afford to sustain the army and police that the U.S.-led ISAF has built. The U.S. has spent about $27 billion so far on Afghanistan’s security forces, and according to estimates this week, they could cost about $6 billion a year going forward.

That would be a steep bill in the best of times, but European capitals are roiling with the ongoing debt crisis and Congress wants to slash, not grow, its future budgets.

In congressional hearings last fall, Pentagon leaders pledged that having largely built up the Afghan security services, the next American goal was to reduce their sustainment costs. But then-Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy did not yet have specifics on cost targets or schedules, and it appears they still haven’t been settled.

Partially complicating matters was Panetta’s statement Wednesday that he hopes Afghan forces can assume the „combat lead” in Afghanistan as early as next year, much as Iraq’s army took over planning and running missions from American forces in 2009.

Panetta made clear that American troops would still be in Afghanistan until 2014, as previously planned, but by then they would have completed a major „tranche” in their handover. And he reiterated that American troops would probably stay past 2014 to help train Afghan forces and keep up a steady pace of special operations.

Panetta gave an optimistic take about an early handover and reassurances about the long-term U.S. commitment.

„The fact that we can discuss this now is a sign of progress, and it’s a recognition that our strategy is working,” he said. „But I want to be clear:  Even as Afghans assume the security lead, ISAF will continue to have to be fully combat-ready, and we will engage in combat operations as necessary.  Our troops are going to have to defend themselves.  They’re going to have to deal with some special operations.  They will have to deal with extremis situations that might develop.  But clearly they will have to continue to be combat-ready in that period.”

Even though American officials keep up a relatively rosy public outlook about the near-term prospects for Afghanistan, this week included many hints that the government’s forecast gets bleaker as it looks further out.

Senate and House lawmakers asked CIA Director David Petraeus in separate hearings about a classified National Intelligence Estimate on Afghanistan that is said to paint a grim picture of its future stability. Although neither they nor Petraeus would describe it in detail for security reasons, Petraeus tried to reassure members that it mostly covered predictions for what would happen in Afghanistan after 2014, based on a few assumptions and scenarios.

Petraeus was trying to reassure lawmakers, especially after Panetta’s comments, that the Obama administration’s policies in Afghanistan were on the right course, but in doing so he tacitly confirmed that U.S. intelligence officials believe the country could founder after 2014.

For now, American commanders say Afghan troops have made good progress since the international training began in earnest – for example, Afghan recruits’ rifle qualification rate was about 35 percent in 2009, compared with 95 percent last year. Panetta told reporters he was bullish that they would be ready.

„[ISAF commander] General [John] Allen made clear that obviously the key to all of this is the ability of the Afghan army and the NSF to be able to take control and secure these areas,” Panetta said. „What gives him confidence that this is going to work are the tranches that have already been put in place, and the fact that in those areas, some of which weren’t the easiest, that the Afghan army has stepped up to it and are doing the job and are providing security.”

Nonetheless, there are many skeptics. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon, a California Republican, said Wednesday the Obama administration needs to give Congress more evidence.

„While there have certainly been improvements in the Afghan Security Forces’ capabilities, the committee has not seen a single assessment by our commanders that indicates they have any confidence in such a swift transition,” McKeon said. „In 2006, America made a similar mistake in Iraq. We moved before the Iraqis were ready and we were faced with near civil war. It is incumbent upon DoD to justify this change in strategy to Congress before announcing it publicly.”