War is about killing. It is not about acting strong; it is not about scaring the enemy: It is about destroying their ability to make war until they surrender. It is a brutal and ugly business that requires rough men—the kind of men I knew while serving in the U.S. Marines where I was taught the methods of war by the very best.

In Ganjgal, Afghanistan September 7, 2009, four U.S. Marines were killed. The Marines were assisting Afghan forces in searching for weapons and then meeting village elders to plan police patrols. They were ambushed by rebel forces during the operation.

While it was the bullets of the “insurgents” that ended their lives, it was political correctness that killed them. U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls by the Marines to unleash fire at insurgents despite being told repeatedly that they were not near the village or civilians. These new rules are politically correct and were issued to avoid civilian casualties which risk alienating the Afghan population and jeopardizing the war effort. But General Stanley A. McChrystal and other top military officials have insisted air support and fire power would not be restricted when U.S. troops were under direct threat. Unfortunately, those warriors died because they were sent into a known hostile area and promised air support that never came.

Those brave Marines would be alive today if not for President Barack Obama’s support of these politically-correct military rules. These rules prevented the Marines from receiving the military back-up they needed for survival. Their pleas, "We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo…,” were ignored.

Gen. McChrystal has requested 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan. Again our soldiers are contending with half-measures and lack of support. After months of receiving Gen. McChrystal’s recommendation, Mr. Obama has yet to make a decision and is wary of upsetting his far-left, anti-war proponents. Mr. Obama has signaled that he might send half the number of troops that were requested. Such a decision would be folly. Mr. Obama is not better equipped to make such a decision than Gen. McChrystal. The president has never so much as worn a pair of combat boots while the distinguished general has served in the military since he was 18-years-old. If Mr. Obama does indeed decide to send in only 20,000 troops, our enemy will be emboldened and our troops demoralized. The result will be more unnecessary deaths of our men in arms.

War is made by a state with laws. It is an act of imposing that will upon others who in turn resist. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are fiercely resisting that imposition of will which can only be stopped with sudden violence. So long as we are willing to impose our will upon those forces of terror, we will be at war. When at war, it is imperative to allow the military to do their job and destroy the enemy as quickly as possible. No war has ever been won by using less force than its opposition.

Half-measures cannot win wars. Half-measures were seen in Vietnam, which resulted not in a “bloodless war” but fully bloodied troops. President Lyndon Johnson’s micro-managed plan was to risk the lives of troops by using a “slow squeeze” play as recommended by his civilian advisors. This was in direct conflict with the senior military advisors’ “fast attack.” President Jimmy Carter used half-measures in the Iran Hostage Crisis that lasted 444 days, with a failed micro-managed rescue disaster in the sand, Operation Eagle Claw.  President Bill Clinton thought he could fight war with missiles, letting them destroy “baby-milk factories” in Iraq and hospitals in Serbia. Mr. Clinton denied Gen. Thomas Montgomery’s request for reinforcements, air support and armored vehicles in Mogadishu, where 18 American soldiers were killed and 77 wounded. Half-measures do not work.

Now, Mr. Obama thinks he can micro-manage the war in Afghanistan while also preventing the left-wing base from revolting. But according to Gen. George S. Patton Jr., “There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." This is a formula for success.

President George W. Bush’s War on Terror was one of the most successful wars in the long history of war: more land was taken in less time, with the lowest loss of life. This result was due to Mr. Bush allowing the troops to destroy the enemy swiftly. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was over in a few months; it is the occupation that has lasted for years, which is to be expected. The occupation of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, likewise, took years.

Mr. Obama is more interested in protecting his image than saving the lives of our brave men and women who face death. The best way to get the troops out of Afghanistan is to trust Gen. McChrystal and comply with his recommendation. Those men are risking their lives, the least Mr. Obama can do is risk is his reputation.

Other Democratic leaders such as President Harry Truman and President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood how to conduct a war. They were willing to wage even total war when necessary, such as the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima. Full measures brought about full surrender. But, that was when Democrats were still fully committed to the founding principles of America. The modern Democratic Party is no longer loyal to America or its values. It is loyal only to political ambition and will sacrifice troops at its altar.

If al Qaeda and the Taliban are worth killing, then the United States must fight. If they are not, then our troops should return home and Afghanistan should suffer its fate under the Taliban. When the president knowingly sends troops into known hostile areas without the necessary support and they die, their blood is on his hands. Our American soldiers should not be sacrificed to satiate the wolf of appeasement.