President Obama faces tough decisions on Afghanistan, but his party is on the hot seat too. Afghanistan is the first real test since Vietnam of Democrats' collective ability to manage a major armed conflict. Just how to do that is the subject of an intense internal debate. Whatever the strategy, his party must avoid a convulsive split that would cast doubt on its ability to secure the country. Last March, Obama said his goal is to prevent al Qaeda from launching attacks on America. His handpicked commander, General McChrystal, is asking for up to 40,000 additional troops for a counterinsurgency campaign to achieve the president's goal.

McChrystal's request and Afghanistan's rigged Presidential election have triggered a second White House review, leading many to wonder if Obama is having second thoughts. While the President's military advisers endorsed McChrystal, Vice President Joe Biden is advocating a counterterrorism strategy with a smaller military footprint.

The Administration's deliberations also unfold decreasing public support: Multiple polls show more than half the public thinks the costs of Afghanistan outweigh the benefits. That's caused many Congressional Democrats to voice deep reservations about sending more troops. It's not just the reflexively anti-war fringe; pragmatic liberals like Senate Armed Forces Chairman Carl Levin are also skeptical. By sending more troops, Obama could find himself in the awkward position of conducting a war with more backing from Republicans than from his own party.

So what should Obama do? None of the options seem promising, and all entail risks.

We believe a counterinsurgency campaign stands the best chance of achieving the President's goals. Its first order of business is to decrease violence. That requires more U.S. forces to protect the population from the Taliban while buying time to train Afghan security outfits.

A stepped-up counterterrorism campaign would kill more militant leaders, but it won't hold territory or protect civilians. While this approach would limit casualties in the short term, it doesn't provide a clear path toward extricating our forces. Although it may seem counterintuitive, a surge of U.S. troops now could allow us to hand off the war to Afghans sooner rather than later.

The counterterrorism camp questions whether a Taliban restoration would lead to the reconstitution of al Qaeda in Afghanistan from their current base in Pakistan. But why would al Qaeda leaders continue to skulk underground in Pakistan when they could live freely under the Taliban? Further, the Taliban's return to power would be hailed by Islamists everywhere as a victory.

Polls show Americans understand what's at stake. According to the Pew Research Center, 76 percent view a Taliban restoration as a "major threat" to American security; a combined 72 percent, according to a New York Times/CBS poll, believe the goal in Afghanistan is to defeat the Taliban and/or eliminate terrorism.

Unlike counterterrorism, which back-loads big risks to U.S. security, the counterinsurgency option addresses these issues. That makes it preferable, even if it doesn't make it popular. Counterinsurgency will cost more money and lives, take more time, and may never succeed.

Do war-weary Americans have the stomach it? More to the point, does their governing party? The signs aren't encouraging: A late September USAToday/Gallup poll found that 60 percent of Democrats oppose more troops.

That's why this strategic decision is so critical: it's about security, not popularity. If Democrats heed the public outcry and fall out over Afghanistan, Obama will find it hard to sustain any coherent policy. Should an attack follow, Democrats will look like they're incapable of defending the country.

Republicans will have a field day resurrecting the old bugaboo of Democrats as "soft on defense." Only recently have Democrats shed that image. A Democracy Corps poll found that the 40 year national security confidence gap that has dogged Democrats has substantially closed. But some of the old doubts are creeping back: A September Gallup poll found that the public still prefers Republicans for fighting terrorism by a 49-42 margin.

Let's be clear: We're not arguing that Obama should make his decision based on a desire to "look tough" on national security. We're saying Democrats ought to think long and hard before forsaking a war that Obama has defined, both during the campaign and as president, as necessary to Americans' security.

Obama and his party have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to consolidate a new progressive governing majority. But to do that, they must govern effectively. That means offering coherent and credible strategies for American safety, and the stamina to stick with them. For his party no less than for President Obama, Afghanistan will be the acid test.