In a report submitted in late August (link in PDF), Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top military commander in Afghanistan wrote: "The situation in Afghanistan is serious. The mission is achievable, but success demands a fundamentally new approach – one that is properly resourced and supported by better unity of effort."

In his address at West Point tonight, the president is expected to approve an additional 30,000-34,000 troops to "finish the Afghanistan job" and to call for withdrawal within three years. This past October, General McChrystal requested a minimum of 40,000 troops in order to avert a "high risk of failure." Finishing the job is important, but successfully finishing the job is imperative.

Unfortunately, U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has become a highly partisan issue. Liberals are pressuring the president to reject McChrystal's request and instead establish a framework for immediate withdrawal. But this would be a mistake. "Not only would it allow a safe space for al Qaeda to operate," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll, "but it could also destabilize Pakistan, whom we should never forget has nuclear weapons."

Failure to "defeat the Taliban, destroy al Qaeda and establish a free, sovereign Afghanistan…is not an option, for it would be a direct threat to our national well being," Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes argues on National Review Online. "That's not theory, it's a historical fact."

After helping defeat the Soviet invasion, the U.S. pulled out of Afghanistan in the 1990s, Holmes explains. But the very problems we mistakenly thought we had put to rest back then are back -- "only this time, things could be worse," warns Holmes. Failing to commit the resources necessary -- a minimum of 40,000 troops to start -- "would recreate the exact conditions that produced the 9/11 attacks." That's not a risk the president should be willing to take.

Heritage on the ground in Honduras

After months of political crisis, Hondurans have elected a new president: Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo of the center-right National Party. "The Honduran people voted for sanity, normality, and a chance to make their own future," Heritage expert Ray Walser explains.

Walser traveled to Honduras with his Heritage colleagues Jim Roberts and Israel Ortega to serve as election observers. They helped ensure the process of restoring democratic rule after former President Manuel Zelaya tried this year to subvert his country's constitution.

The three Heritage observers participated in the Washington Senior Observer Group, which released the following statement:

We witnessed the enthusiastic desire of thousands of Honduran citizens to cast their ballots. Many took time to thank us for our presence today. Without exception, they expressed confidence in the electoral system, pride in exercising their right to vote, and a profound hope that their election is a decisive step toward the restoration of the constitutional and democratic order in Honduras.

Honduran democracy was called into question in June when then-president Zelaya tried unconstitutionally to extend his term in office. The country's Supreme Court quickly ousted Zelaya for this transgression and replaced him with interim president Robert Micheletti.

Zelaya made a number of failed attempts to reclaim his presidency, and drew international support from leftists like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Brazil's Luiz da Silva and even the Obama administration. Despite this international pressure, the defiant Hondurans stood by their constitution and refused Zelaya's return.

"Thankfully, the Obama administration eventually realized the error of their ways and helped broker a deal between Zelaya and the interim government on October 29th," writes Heritage's Conn Carroll. A legitimate and transparent election was a critical component of this agreement.

The deal "also gives hope that the United States will stop alienating its many Honduran friends who feel that expelling Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez wannabee, was not only warranted but necessary to save their constitution," explains Walser.

Although Zelaya and his supporters used intimidation tactics to suppress voter turnout, 61 percent of Hondurans cast their votes, a substantial increase in participation over the 2005 election. Still, Zelaya challenges the legitimacy of the election results.

It's now time for "the Obama administration [to] assert itself and make sure that Zelaya does not derail the electoral process and steal Honduras from its people," writes Carroll.