From Pearl Harbor to the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1991, with the exception of the later years of the Vietnam War, America has followed a bipartisan foreign policy: be firm with adversaries, collaborate with allies, stand steadfast in supporting human rights, and favor listening and diplomacy over arrogance when addressing world issues. No nation other than America was in a position to lead the world then, and none is now. But since 1991 foreign policy debates in the US – over the Balkans, the Middle East, Africa, North Korea, and Iraq – have become more contentious and partisan, and our stance with our allies and others more "take it or leave it". In PURPLE's view, this trend, mirroring acerbic Congressional debates over domestic policies, does not serve our nation well.

Today, a great threat to civilization is the inability of Islam and the West to find common ground on which to co-exist in cooperative harmony. Differences in demographics, geography, religion, culture, history, education, and access to resources, and a rapidly integrating global economy, all contribute to this impasse. Neither side understands the other well. Zealots on each side see this confrontation as a "win-lose" matter, and are determined that their side "win."

Today we are debating America's (and the West's) role in Afghanistan. After many weeks of study and consultation President Obama has announced the broad outlines of his policy - 30,000 more American troops starting now, with drawdown beginning in late 2011. In coming to this conclusion, we feel certain he has reviewed the lessons of Vietnam and Iraq (both ours and the British, Russian and French before us), and the connection between Afghanistan and the wider Asian situation, reaching from Israel and Palestine, through Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan to India, China and Russia, all of with more intimate stakes in this area than do we.

Certainly he is aware of the social, ethical, political and economic conditions in Afghanistan, the fragility of its government, and its people's logical resentment of an occupying power. He surely feels the strain of repeated re-deployments on military families, especially non-career reservists, and the added costs that burden an overstretched budget. He is also knows that the US was attacked on 9/11 by terrorists trained in Afghanistan, and that for eight years we did little to retaliate, being pre-occupied instead with Iraq. He has called the Afghan conflict a "war of necessity," compared to Iraq, "a war of choice." Finally, consider the public image of the US, its military, and its leader, and the effect any changes in those images might have on our ability to lead internationally henceforth.

The first reaction to the program from the left was that "Obama's sold out to the generals. We should get out of Afghanistan right now, saving American lives and treasure." The right was only slightly kinder: "He should send more troops, and setting a cutoff date just encourages the Afghans to stall and do nothing until it arrives."

While nothing is certain, this PURPLE observer believes that President Obama has selected a prudent course, an effort that can remove Afghanistan and, hopefully, Pakistan as safe havens for terrorists. It would preserve the US reputation as a vigorous fighter for peace. And if it doesn't get the necessary cooperation from the Afghan government there is an open door through which to bow out. Interestingly, as the days have passed, Republican Senator John McCain has come around to generally approving the plan, and our Allies have anted up 7,000 more soldiers. Hopefully, we are seeing a foreign policy approach that many Americans on both sides of the political aisle can support.