Congressional Democrats spent the Bush years undermining the fundamental principle of constitutional government that the president is the commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and in doing so, fomented distrust between civilian and military leaders.

A clever commander like McChrystal and the capable troops he leads will no doubt figure out how to make the most of what they have got. But a half-surge would seem to cut their prospects of winning by more than half.

General Stan McChrystal's quotes create an opportunity for President Barack Obama to take command and show his commitment to winning the war in Afghanistan by replacing McChrystal and other officials.

Although there are causes for concern in President Obama's remarks about Afghanistan, his decision to deploy additional troops deserves support.

The question for Republican presidential candidates is whether they think President Obama’s decision to ignore the American military’s advice when it comes to Afghanistan is the wisest course and whether, if elected, he or she will reverse course.

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.

Should the United States pursue a counterterrorism or counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan?

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?