War Strategy: The war in Afghanistan is "deteriorating" and a much bigger commitment is needed if we are to win it, says the top U.S. military officer. President Obama has made this his war. Is he ready to fight it?

For years now, we have heard repeatedly from the left that Afghanistan, not Iraq, is where the U.S. should be. Well, we're there now, 68,000 strong, up from 32,000 in 2008. But even that might not be enough.

"I think it is serious, and it is deteriorating, and I've said that over the past couple of years -- that the Taliban insurgency has gotten better, more sophisticated," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on CNN's "State of the Union" last weekend. The comments were alarming -- and were meant to be.

In July, a resurgent Taliban killed 44 U.S. troops in Afghanistan -- a new high in the eight-year war. American deaths have risen steadily since President Obama took office and began increasing troops to meet the growing challenge.

Faced with troubles on the ground, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, is conducting a top-to-bottom strategy review of what needs to be done. Speculation centers on the Pentagon requesting an increase of 15,000 to 45,000 troops.

McChrystal's review isn't expected to be released until the results of last Thursday's Afghan national election are known, no matter who is declared the victor. But make no mistake: This is now Obama's war to win or lose.

"This is not a war of choice," he told a Veteran of Foreign Wars gathering just last week. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaida would plot to kill more Americans."

We're glad the commander-in-chief understands the importance of Afghanistan. But now he must live up to his rhetoric of last year's presidential campaign, when he deployed the left's "good war-bad war" mythology about George Bush's war on terror to good effect.

In this view, Iraq was the "bad" war, cranked up so President Bush, a former oil executive, could seize Iraq's oil. Afghanistan, according to the left's logic, was a "good" war -- fought against evil terrorists in the Taliban and al-Qaida.

Now Obama is president, and he must decide: Send in more troops, revamp our strategy and win, or pull out and declare the war "unwinnable." The latter would be disastrous. Even the Obama kiss-ups at the New York Times suggested as much in a recent headline: "Could Afghanistan Become Obama's Vietnam?"

Good question. It certainly looks that way, unless things change quite dramatically. Like LBJ, Obama seems distracted by his vast domestic agenda. But he shouldn't forget: America is at war, and Americans don't forgive those who let America go down to defeat.

Though President Bush committed troops early to Afghanistan, he focused on regime change in Iraq. And after initial stumbles, he altered his strategy, added troops and won that conflict.

If President Obama is wise, he'll swallow his pride when it comes to war and take Bush as his role model. If not, it's likely he'll return to private life after just one term -- just like LBJ.