The thing about Lincoln is that he was very adept at seeing what the people -would- accept, as in the timing of the Emancipation Proclamation, and he also helped mold public opinion through his many speeches and public letters, as when he wrote to James Conkling:

"I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers."

At that point (August 1863), there had been very little use of black troops; Lincoln was leading the people the way they needed to go.

But Obama doesn't do that. He remains supine at the foot of the Bully Pulpit. The simpering chimp of Houston used it better than he does.

Oh well, people get the governance they deserve. People in the mid-19th century deserved Lincoln. We deserve Bush and Obama.

Walt

In short TYRTAIOS is saying that even if Obama decided to put a wrap on the Afghan War today an orderly withdrawal would still take us to 2014. To engineer a withdrawal of 100,000 troops (I assume and have no problem with SOF’s hanging around) in a sensible fashion it would take that amount of time? Coming from TYRTAIOS I will take his word for it since I know he knows his business. We did move a couple of million troops with a much heavier footprint out of NW Europe in 1946-47 faster than that but then again we actually won that war and were masters of the universe. So, if it’s got to be 2014 then so be it.

But, the key point that TYRTAIOS makes is that the welfare those Afghans that worked with us and are clearly identified as serving our interests need to be addressed. We embarrassed ourselves badly in Vietnam by abandoning many who stuck their necks out for Americans and paid a stiff price as a result. Many right-wing politicians spend a lot of time fulminating about what an exceptional nation we are and our Christian values so let’s see them do something concrete about the inevitable predicament of these unfortunate people.

I wouldn't worry too much about the attitudes of future potential allies. They will respond, as allies always do, to US needs only when their goals coincide with US goals, the US offers a sufficient amount of cash, or the US dominates the local space, even if everyone knows the US presence would be ephemeral.

The only wildcat in the scenario is China, China as rising superpower stands as another patron. But if allies are worried about American fickleness and duplicity, I doubt that they would cause them to trust the Chinese, our primary opponent du jour.

To JPWREL, I agree about the shoddy way America has treated its local allies. I've heard appaling stories from former interpreters with family histories intertwined with the Americans going back to the Shah's time. These folks are still at risk even here in the US.

But, we have to ask who gets saved. Just being an Iraqi or Afghan who worked with the US isn't enough. If it would be, then let in the Iraqi Shiite militiamen. The recent discovery of State Deparment incompetence that allowed two Iraqi would-be terrorists into the US raises concern (but it's being "dealt" with). My fear of domestic terrorism isn't based on the ability of the terrorists to make mayhem per se. We are statistically more likely to die of accidents involving animals/insects, prescription drugs and trucks than terrorist attack. But we've seen how this country acts after a domestic terrorist attack, we've also seen how our politicians shamelessly take advantage of that fear to pass draconian and generally harmful legislation such as corporate immunity for vaccine related death and injuries.

I could countenance, for example, letting in individual ethnic Pashtuns or Parsiwan from the South of Afghanistan who have served the US in open, and very dangerous roles as interpreters or worked as low level bureaucrats or employees of NGO's, thereby marking them for murder and also preventing them from garnering a huge nest egg in Dubai to fall back on like the Karzai boys. I'd be leery of letting in Afghan soldiers and government backed local militiamen because of poor vetting.

Finally, I'd be disinclined to allow in Ismail Khan or Dostum's boys or any other militia man who allied with the US simply because we took his people's side during a preexisting Afghan civil war.The fact that the war was preexisting negates any responsibility we owe to our allies. Let them go back to fighting each other. Indeed, even Charlie Wilson's kerfuckle isn't reason to feel ourselves indebted to our former allies. Their fathers and grandfathers decided to take it upon themselves to wage war against the USSR and its Afghan client state. We were merely a means to an end for them, an instrument of God's well, no different than the French were for us during the Revolution.

Frankly, the message that came across loud and clear is "Vote for me in November 2012." It's pretty clear this is the reason for the decision and the intended beneficiary is his own political prospects. It also underscores his repeated credit-claiming for the Navy SEALS' killing of Bin Laden.

This whole sad spectacle reminds me of the confident Bush White House of 1991 that thought they would coast to re-election based on the results of the Gulf War. Then, as now, the next year's election will turn on "it's the economy, stupid." No amount of President's patting oneself on the back or cribbing of Lincoln will make up for 14 million unemployed and no economic growth.

This is a great post that I think will prove to be eerily prophetic...but it makes me want to crawl into a dark place to cry...