The War in Afghanistan is on a fast track to failure. This is not because of an ineffective administration, as in the early years of Iraq, or even because of an Afghan government wrought with corruption, but because of a lack of resources. The president must quickly make the decision to increase troops and resources, or else the war will turn into a complete foreign policy disaster.

It has now been over two months since General McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, formally sent his report requesting up to 40,000 troops on the Afghan front. Since reviewing the document President Obama has delayed his decision until an election fraud scandal in war-torn Afghanistan is resolved.

This would be understandable, as a government with questionable legitimacy proportionately lacks effectiveness. What the president seems not to understand is Afghanistan’s national government never had encompassing authority.

Obama is delaying his decision for what has already become an inconsequential presidential election. The Afghan government is corrupt, and authority rests in the hands of local tribal leaders rather than that of dignitaries such as President Hamid Karzai.

Afghanistan is in a civil war as the Taliban wrestles for control, and the Afghan people are caught in the crossfire.

Before the United States can hope to back a centralized Afghan government, the armed forces must gain control over destabilized regions. By no means is this an easy feat, especially as the Taliban exploits every opportunity to expand its power.

Obama needs to realize that before an effective central Afghan government can be instituted, Afghanistan must be united. To do this, Obama needs to increase troops and resources. That’s not to say Obama is not right to hesitate.

Never should American lives or resources be risked without scrutiny, but we’re eight years deep in chaos, and the risks of losing ground in Afghanistan are too great.

With the Afghanistan election scandal now diminished, there are hints the delay was less of a decision concerning corruption abroad, and more of a political decision here. Many big name Democrats, such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and even Vice President Joe Biden, are more than hesitant to allocate more troops and resources.

Meanwhile, Republicans plead McChrystal’s case in Congress. John McCain argued in a CNN article for the importance of securing Afghanistan, lest the U.S. lose further control in neighboring nuclear-armed Pakistan.

In 2007, President Bush was faced with a similar predicament. Confronted with what seemed to be an unwinnable war in Iraq, Bush supported a final surge in the ravaged country.

The United States is now preparing to leave Iraq as a sovereign, democratic nation, and the same can happen in Afghanistan if Obama heeds McChrystal.

It all comes down to one crucial component: If Obama wants to avoid squandering American lives and resources, he will continue on his path of indecision.

If Obama wants to show us he’s the strong leader he campaigned as, he’ll approve the commitment of McCrystal’s troops. Afghanistan is in Obama’s hands now.