Whatever course he chooses, the President will need his party's understanding and support to succeed. If Democrats fall out over Afghanistan, he won't be able to sustain a coherent policy, and the public will likely lose confidence in the party's ability to manage the nation's security.
News flash; a half trained second lieutenant could “manage the nation's security,” because there is no nation or organization on Earth that is capable of posing a threat to this nation’s security. To paraphrase Colin Powell, a man this nation at one time practically regarded as godlike,
“Can they blow up a few buildings? Sure. Can they kill quite a few people? Certainly. Are they a threat to the nation itself? Not even close.”
Should we be taking measures to prevent crazed thugs from blowing up our buildings and killing our people? Certainly we should, but don’t call it “national security” because the security of our nation doesn’t depend on it. What depends on it is lives, the lives of less than 1% of our population. Those lives matter, but the fate of the nation does not rest upon them.
Mr. Arkedis refers to his blog as “The Place for Pragmatic Progressives.” So far more than 5000 men and women have died to avenge 3000 who died on 9/11. I’m not sure how pragmatic that is. Nor do I regard as pragmatic the theory that holds that because one is a Democrat then in all cases one supports, “It’s okay when Obama does it.”