With risk comes reward but Barack Hussein Obama the amateur “commander-in-chief” is risking the lives of troops in Afghanistan and those who will be deployed there. The order has been submitted, the “commander” has spoken and General McChrystal has been set up for failure.

How many troops Obama is directing to Afghanistan is only unofficial but the numbers being reported are not what the commander on the ground has asked for. Some news organizations place the number of new troops he will announce tonight at 30,000 while others are reporting 34,000. What is clear is that all of the numbers reported are far below the levels that General Stanley McChrystal told Obama was necessary to maximize the chance for victory in Afghanistan.

As multiple sources reported this October, General McChrystal presented Obama with three troop level scenarios each graded by risk: 1) an additional 20,000 troops that would run a “high risk of failure“; 2) an additional 80,000 troops that would be a “low risk option” that has “best chance to contain the Taliban-led insurgency and stabilize Afghanistan“; or 3) an additional 40,000 to 45,000 troop “medium risk option.”

If Obama were Goldilocks he would be eaten by the three bears but in this case mistakes and indecision by Obama will cost the lives of troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

No matter what risk level Obama chooses, his delay in making the decision has already hurt the mission’s chance for success. Obama has been in office for over 10 months and was privy to extensive briefings on the Afghan situation before that.

In March of this year he announced his intention to dedicate the time, resources, and U.S. leadership necessary to stabilize the region and contain al Qaeda and the Taliban. In August he reaffirmed this commitment, acknowledging the centrality of defeating the Taliban to American security and calling Afghanistan a “war of necessity.” But the actual order to commit the resources to back up these words kept meeting delay; delay that only made victory more difficult. As well-known Pakistan expert Ahmed Rashid commented on October 27th in an article in the National Interest,

“Every sign of the United States or NATO dithering over strategy only convinces the Pakistani military about keeping its Taliban option open.”

With a 22-year-old son serving in Afghanistan, Denise Young of Kokomo, Indiana knows what she wants to hear Barack Obama tell the nation this evening from West Point.

“That he is going to let the generals make the decisions,” Mrs. Young said. “They have asked for more troops. They should get them. There is safety in numbers.”

Antiwar sentiment in Indiana and other places largely reflects anger at politicians for not clearly defining the mission in Afghanistan or for not giving troops the tools to succeed. Mrs. Young’s husband, Rick Young, says the U.S. is more focused on minimizing civilian casualties than winning battles.

He and his wife — who is president of the North Central Blue Star Mothers of Indiana, a support group for families with children serving in the military — plan to watch Mr. Obama’s speech on TV.

“Richard told me he’s over there to protect what is behind him, not what’s in front of him,” Mrs. Young said. “They need the support of the country to do that right.”

Unfortunately this is a political decision not a military one. General McChrystal has been made the scapegoat for Obama’s indecision and the troops will suffer the consequences of a rudderless Obama.

“Obama needs to give them a clear mission…and he needs to let them fight,” said Mrs. Young, whose son Richard is an Army sergeant seven months into his first deployment in Afghanistan. “The politicians need to get out of the way.”

Much of the country supports the troops and the mission unfortunately the politicians don’t support the mission in Afghanistan or Iraq enough to stand up and follow the lead of commanders who know what it takes to win and have proven that with victory in Iraq.

It’s time for Obama to step up and man up but his feckless indecision over the months may only be prescribing a “strategy” of failure, one of his own making. Indeed!