A Surge To Help Afghanistan

But this is not an insuperable problem. The coalition could begin to experiment with thinning its presence inside more battle-hardened Afghan units, which in turn could be partnered with American combat units, as is already done in Iraq. NATO members could also aid this effort by dropping the national caveats that limit the effectiveness of their own embedded trainers inside the Afghan force.

Defeating the Taliban -- much less building a successful Afghanistan -- will of course require more than a bigger Afghan army. First and foremost, we need to apply the same basic counterinsurgency principles in southern Afghanistan that have brought so much success in Iraq over the past year -- beginning with an integrated, civil-military campaign plan that prioritizes the basic security of the Afghan people.

As Iraq has also demonstrated, however, this is an inherently manpower-intensive mission. In the short term, increasing the number of coalition troops in Afghanistan can help, but long-term success depends on the emergence of a large number of well-equipped, effective Afghan troops.

The United States has already laid the foundation of the indigenous force that can shoulder this fight. What the Afghan army needs now is a surge in support from Washington -- a cause that both Democrats and Republicans, united in their desire for victory in Afghanistan, should back.

The Bush administration has an opportunity in Bucharest to provide our allies in Kabul with the military means to prevail in our shared struggle against the forces of extremism and terrorism. It should seize it -- and members of both parties in Congress should support it.

The writer is an independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.