If the U.S. cuts and runs from Afghanistan, throwing Afghanis back into the clutches of the Taliban, it will embolden terrorists operating around the world.

It would also be a slap in the face to each and every American who has served and sacrificed, since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 that were planned in the al-Qaeda safe haven.

The dithering within the White House in deciding whether to provide the necessary additional military resources is an insult to all in uniform, their families and all supportive Americans.

The delay also conveys to our adversaries an apparent indecisiveness on the part of civilian officeholders. And, it may reflect a proclivity to bias national security decisions, or the timing of such announcements, on domestic political planning stratagems. Such stalling may have a purpose.

In addition to serving the Administration’s undecided mind, dragging out the process provides time to hatch new material or update previous analysis to help support the decision, the timing, or set the domestic political table.

Take the recent “new” Senate report that Osama “Bin Laden was in our grasp” eight years ago. That’s not “new” news. It was first reported seven years ago. Several books have been published since providing expanded detail, analysis and strong criticism of early choices made by military and civilian leaders during the fourth quarter of 2001.

So, why the new report? And, why release it now?

Developed by staff members of the current majority party at the request of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the report states that the “failure to kill or capture bin Laden at his most vulnerable in December 2001 has had lasting consequences.” That foundational text in the report is obviously valid.

The report goes on to assert that “Bin Laden's escape laid the foundation for today’s reinvigorated Afghan insurgency.” That’s new spin.

Then, to cover all bases, the report adds: “inflamed the internal strife now endangering Pakistan.” That’s an attempt to build a firewall — just in case.

Obviously, Kerry, the 2004 Democrat standard bearer, wants to get a few extra licks in even though that presidential election bout has been long over. During the 2004 campaign, Kerry argued that President Bush “missed a chance to get Bin Laden” while the al-Qaeda leader was in Afghanistan during the three months after the 9/11 attacks.

Obvious too, is the fact that the 2008 Democrat standard bearer — Barack Obama, who did not support U.S. military efforts in Iraq — repeatedly pointed to Afghanistan, stating that country should have been the focus of our military incursion. That was Obama’s way of siding with anti-Iraq war supporters while also appearing to Independents to be supportive of military action where needed.

Now, with Obama in the White House as president, his hand-picked generals in charge at the Pentagon and in the Middle East requesting more boots on the ground in Afghanistan, and Democrats in control of both the House and the Senate, decisions — however long they have been dithered — must finally be made. And, made they have been.

Leaks have outlined the formal presidential announcement due this week. Let’s hope the current administration does the right thing and approves the specific increase in troop levels as requested by the generals.

In any case, one decision made and executed appears to be the “new” Senate report — yet, another example of the current administration’s propensity to knock the prior administration in order to distract Americans’ attention from what they do and how they do it.

Richard Olivastro is president of Olivastro Communications, a professional member of the National Speakers Association and founder of Citizens For Change. He can be reached at Rich@Olivastro.NET or 877.RichSpeaks.