COLUMN:Never bring a knife to a gun battle

If a perp attacks a police officer with his fist, the officer will respond with a baton or taser. If the criminal pulls out a knife, the officer will draw his firearm. If the dirt bag pulls a gun, the officer will be pulling a trigger.

This escalation of force is designed to insure that every officer gets home safely at the end of his or her shift.

Unfortunately for our men and women in Afghanistan, the military currently does not have this option.

A police officer confronted with a dangerous situation does not have to go up the chain of command to obtain approval to respond with the force necessary to win. Each officer is invested with the authority and the training to assess the situation and determine what level of force is needed to successfully resolve the situation.

If an officer needs additional units to assist, he or she can call for them and they will come. If an officer decides deadly force is necessary, he or she is empowered to take whatever steps necessary to stop the imminent threat.

Our fighting men and women are trained to make the same assessments and have the authority to implement their decisions on a local scale. However, when you are trying to secure an entire country and win a war, the decisions are made at a much higher level.

The top American commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has asked President Obama for 40,000 more troops in order to defeat the Taliban.

McChrystal warned that without the additional troops, the United States risks losing the war in Afghanistan.

McChrystal submitted his assessment in a 66-page report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates on August 30. The Obama administration has so far failed to respond with a definitive course of action.

With casualties mounting and 68,000 troops expected in Afghanistan by the end of the year, it is imperative that the administration develop clear objectives for the resolution of this conflict.

If the goal is to defeat the Taliban, then the military should be provided with the troops necessary to crush the Taliban once and for all.

Last week, the Obama administration began to backpedal saying the Taliban itself was not a direct security threat to the United States. Their chief concern is Al-Qaeda, which is primarily based in neighboring Pakistan.

According to an article in the New York Times, the President is considering a plan that would leave troop levels unchanged, but would increase efforts to root out Al-Qaeda.

What does that mean for our troops in Afghanistan?

The situation on the ground is deteriorating. Our top commander asked for help over a month ago and has yet to receive a reply.

Imagine if one of our local police officers or sheriff’s deputies were injured or killed because he or she put out a call for help and no one was available to respond.

The public would be outraged and demand to know why there were not more police on the streets. Why should our military be put in the situation where they need help and cannot get it?

This past March, Obama introduced a new strategy for the war in which he declared that defeating the Taliban was the only way to insure that Afghanistan did not once again become a haven for Al-Qaeda.

Either he was wrong then or he is wrong now.

Our troops deserve clear cut objectives and strong leadership. It is time for the Commander in Chief to stop resting on his Nobel Peace Prize laurels. If the goal is to defeat the Taliban, then give McChrystal the troops he needs to make that happen. If the goal is to send more Americans home in body bags, then the current delay and deliberate tactics will suffice.

Kristi Reed is a reporter for the Barrow Journal. You may reach her at kreed@barrowjournal.com.