The administration’s drawdown is, at best, a gamble. But national security isn’t a game of roulette. Why not do what it takes to win the war, rather than run away by providing too few resources?

The situation with General McChrystal has shifted the spotlight to President Obama's highly conditional commitment to Afghanistan, forcing Obama to answer whether he can adapt to win the war.

Replacing General Stanley McChrystal and others involved with setting American policy on Afghanistan will allow the United States to begin down the road to victory.

The United States faces a critical decision point in its next steps in Afghanistan. This event will address the implications of such policy choices and the prospects for success in the struggle against extremist forces.

Resident scholar Frederick W. Kagan, who directs the Critical Threats Project at AEI, and Kimberly Kagan, founder and president of the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), spent 150 days in Afghanistan in 2010 and will lay out the key details of their latest report, "Defining Success in Afghanistan."

This report argues for an addition of 40,000-45,000 U.S. troops in 2010 to the 68,000 American forces that will be there by the end of this year.

General McChrystals remarks should force President Obama to abandon his policy of splitting the difference on Afghanistan, as he must definitely act to set a course that will produce success and claim victory.

In his twenty-five minutes on Air Force One, General McChrystal may have used his knowledge and experience to convince Obama that his judgment was better than that of the armchair generals that the president had listened to for three hours the day before.