President Barack Obama has said it himself — Afghanistan is a war of necessity. As such, it is necessary that we succeed in both our military and political missions there.

The president is expected Tuesday to outline a new strategy for Afghanistan. His commander in the region, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, has asked for a surge of at least 40,000 additional troops to turn back the sharp rise in attacks and stabilize the country.

Obama is under immense pressure from his most ardent supporters on the left to deliver something well short of that number. Some, including Vice President Joe Biden, have suggested the war might be managed from afar, using drone bombers and special-operations forces to surgically strike al-Qaida strongholds.

That is not likely to bring quick relief to Americans or the Afghan people.

Obama has been forceful in stating that Afghanis must learn to secure and govern their own country.

But things have grown out of hand there in recent months. Coalition fatalities are up 55 percent, and ambushes using improvised explosive devices are up 80 percent. The government of Hamid Karzai is under almost constant attack from Taliban forces.

As the United States learned in Iraq, as long as that level of violence continues, achieving the stability needed for self-government is impossible. If Obama bows to political considerations and falls too short of McChrystal's troop request, it will be more difficult and take longer to subdue the insurgents.

Sending in 40,000 more troops will be a tough sell to an American public weary of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we are fighting in Afghanistan for a good reason. The country served as the incubator for the terrorists who attacked us on September 11. If we leave before accomplishing our mission, the Taliban extremists will again hang out the welcome sign for al-Qaida.

But this cannot be an endless war. An overwhelming troop surge will stabilize the country sooner and, hopefully, reduce coalition casualties.

And then what? That question must be clearly answered as Obama presents his blueprint for the war.

Winning on the political front is every bit as important as a military victory. As in Iraq, the troop surge must be paired with an aggressive effort to rebuild the country's political infrastructure.

That may mean welcoming in some who fought against us, again, as we are doing in Iraq. And it certainly means holding Karzai accountable for running a transparent and representative government. There's no point in trading one group of corrupt tyrants for another.

In all of this, our NATO partners must be called on to carry their share of the load. They haven't been doing that lately. European nations send fewer than half the 5,000 troops they promised to deploy to secure the recent Afghan elections.

And of course, there's always Pakistan. Afghanistan can't be stabilized as long as large swaths of neighboring Pakistan remain under the control of al-Qaida and the Taliban. The political and economic turmoil in that country must be addressed in the Afghan strategy.

This is a delicate job. Obama must deploy the resources necessary to do it right.

REPRINTED FROM THE DETROIT NEWS