US President Barack Obama’s timetable for rapidly expanding and then shrinking U.S. occupation force levels in Afghanistan, a central feature of his new war strategy, raised questions from critics and supporters alike Wednesday, and left top administration officials struggling to explain the plan.

Pakistan Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said Thursday Pakistan wants “more clarity” on Obama’s new Afghan war strategy. “We are studying that new policy. We need more clarity on it,” he said after talks in London with his British counterpart Gordon Brown.

The war plan presented by the president Tuesday night, which fixes the beginning of troop reductions in July 2011 but does not set an end, was the subject of widespread confusion as lawmakers, diplomats and others debated whether it meant that American forces were headed for a hasty exit or a protracted military engagement.

Richard C. Holbrooke, the special U.S. representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, was sent by Obama to Brussels to explain the policy to European officials. When he arrived Wednesday, he was asked whether the new policy meant that the U.S. military was on the way out. “Europeans sought clarification on this key point because of confusion over some initial press reports,” said Holbrooke, who explained that the drawdown would be based on conditions in Afghanistan, a point Obama made during his speech.

The first American reviews of the plan showed how a policy carefully designed to appeal to differing points of view nonetheless found doubters in virtually all camps.

In Washington, Republicans said it was contradictory to add 30,000 U.S. troops by mid-2010 and begin withdrawing them a year later. “That gives the wrong impression to our friends; it’s the wrong impression to give our enemies,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Democrats worried that Obama’s emphasis on a “conditions-based” withdrawal set up the possibility of an enduring involvement. “I need to be convinced that . . . we are not making an open-ended commitment and that there is a sensible way to pay for the war,” said Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.).

Obama outlined the timetable for his Afghanistan troop buildup during an address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

Whipsawed by political pressures, Obama has been eager to show war-weary Americans that he intends to end the eight-year mission, while signaling allies and the enemy that he intends to remain long enough to achieve U.S. goals.

Obama and other administration officials have chosen their words carefully in arguing that their approach will help pressure Afghan President Hamid Karzai to build up his security forces and improve the government, winning the support of ordinary Afghans away from Taliban-led militants.

Gates, under questioning by Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, at Wednesday’s hearing, explained that the troop drawdown would begin in July 2011, no matter the situation in Afghanistan. When pressed by McCain, however, Gates portrayed the July 2011 date as less definite, asserting that the president may change his plans as needed. The complicated message was interpreted in different ways by different audiences. For instance, Clinton testified that though the decision to withdraw was not irrevocable, the administration had no interest in occupying the country.

Armed with signs berating Obama and umbrellas to shield themselves from a steady drizzle, about 100 people protested Thursday in Detroit the president’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. The antiwar protest came a day after Obama announced his plans to expand the number of soldiers in the war torn country.