BOSTON -- Last week was the deadliest in the eight years of U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. Eighteen Americans were killed in a single day. Who could forget the video of President Obama's midnight visit to Dover Air Force Base as he witnessed the return of their remains?

This week Afghan President Hamid Karzai was re-elected by default, compelling the U.S. to support a man regarded as incompetent and corrupt not only by those in Washington, but also by many Afghan people.

Click To Share Your Views on Our Editorials

After winning the Nobel Peace Prize and now gaining a questionable partner in war, President Obama must decide whether or not to commit tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops to a grinding conflict that has lasted longer for the U.S. than World Wars I and II combined.

Sobering questions proliferate. If more troops are committed, will their mission be clear, contained, and well-supported? Can we escalate in Afghanistan while ignoring a stark decline in support back home? Can a traditional ground war strategy defeat the "win at all costs" guerilla-style combat of the opposition? Should we scale back gradually to a leaner, more agile anti-terrorism effort? Even if this difficult territory could become stabilized, who would rule and keep Afghanistan safe after U.S. troops leave?

Finally, can we ask young more Americans to sacrifice their lives, in a fractious country whose leaders lack the support of all their people? President Obama faces tough decisions in Afghanistan, with no quick or easy solutions. But with American lives at stake, there really shouldn’t be.