In September, President Obama described a pressing national concern of the utmost importance thusly: "We cannot wait any longer ... There comes a time to remember the fierce urgency of right now."

What issue was the president addressing? The war in Afghanistan, where the military and political situation has deteriorated in recent months and the commander on the ground is waiting on approval of an ambitious counterinsurgency plan requiring at least 40,000 new troops?

Nope. Obama was discussing his health care reform proposal, whose approval before Thanksgiving by both houses of Congress he has urged.

By contrast, when it comes to Afghanistan, the president is taking his sweet time to re-evaluate our fundamental strategy (for the second time in less than six months) while the Taliban ---- the militant Islamist group that once controlled the country, harbored Al-Qaida, and hosted training camps for the 9/11 masterminds ---- steadily continues its resurgence.

A possible solution to the crisis lies in the proposal submitted to the president in August by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a counterinsurgency expert hand-picked by Obama to take the reins in Afghanistan back in June.

Last week, the NATO defense ministers endorsed the McChrystal plan, adding their heft to a list of supporters that already includes Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David Petraeus, the commander who orchestrated the wildly successful surge in Iraq, whose counterinsurgency principles form the core of McChrystal's Afghan bid.

The administration has not yet responded to the proposal in the face of adamant opposition by the left to sending more troops to complete the mission.

But what's the alternative to the general's plan? The White House continues to assert its commitment to the mission, and it won't withdraw troops, so how else might it respond to McChrystal's wish list?

First, some armchair generals in the administration believe we can secure the Afghan population and defeat the Taliban on the cheap, with fewer than the 40,000 troops McChrystal has sought. This approach, of course, squarely contradicts Obama's promise during the campaign to listen to the generals ---- and his criticism of both President George W. Bush and Sen. John McCain for failing to do so.

Moreover, as Council on Foreign Relations senior defense fellow Stephen Biddle observes in The New Republic, counterinsurgency is a delicate structure dependent on every brick in its foundation. Biddle writes that "the pieces of orthodox COIN strategy interact: security enables development and governance, development and governance enhance security, governance facilitates counterterrorism, counterterrorism improves security, security enables negotiation and reconciliation." Removing any one piece would cause this intricate Jenga tower to collapse.

Second, Vice President Joseph Biden reportedly favors a "counterterrorism" approach that would focus on deterring Al-Qaida only, via Predator drone strikes and special forces, while negotiating and/or achieving a stalemate with the Taliban.

But such an approach is deeply flawed. Peter Bergen, a counterterrorism expert particularly knowledgeable about Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, notes that, lately, Al-Qaida and the Taliban have essentially merged.

And contrary to the claims of some that training camps in the Afghanistan/Pakistan area are irrelevant when modern-day terrorists can plot attacks over the Internet, Bergen observes that "every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan."

Plus, having conquered and occupied Afghanistan for the past eight years, we cannot consign the Afghan people to the depredations of the Taliban, monsters who would pour acid in the faces of girls who dared to pursue an education and who publicly stone "suspected" gay men and adulterous women.

Nationwide surveys show that more than 60 percent of Afghans support the United States and its military, while the Taliban's own favorability rating regularly falls below 10 percent. Why alienate an important ally in a strategic region by abandoning them?

Finally, others say Afghanistan simply isn't worth the candle, and we should instead focus on defeating Al-Qaida in Pakistan.

Indeed, we must carefully monitor the disturbing developments in Pakistan, where the Taliban and Al-Qaida have tenaciously battled government forces. But what could possibly be more harmful to that effort than ceding Afghanistan to the same forces trying to topple the regime across the border?

Ultimately, I'm with Bergen, who says "though it may be tempting to think otherwise, we cannot defeat Al-Qaida without securing Afghanistan." Let us pray the president agrees.

MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.