Afghanistan: The month before the one-year anniversary of his inauguration, the president has finally settled on the strategy for what he called a "war of necessity." But leaving, not winning, is the goal.

How often in history, if ever, has a British defense secretary slammed a U.S. commander in chief for indecisiveness? Britain's Bob Ainsworth last week blamed the lack of clear direction from the U.S. as responsible for the British public's dwindling support for the Afghan war.

Ainsworth, a former auto plant union official, is no right-wing hawk. At a town hall meeting last month, notorious British pacifist Bruce Kent of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament demanded he hold "talks with the Taliban in neutral countries and talk about their aims" and said not all Taliban are "fanatical maniacs." Partially agreeing, Ainsworth said, "Not all the Taliban are fanatical maniacs, but some of them are, and are not reconcilable."

This is what President Obama is counting on — as many as 10,000 added European and other NATO troops from a European public, and their representatives, who believe in Taliban "moderates."

The president will send far fewer U.S. troops than the 40,000 requested by his handpicked commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal. "At the end of the day, I believe that between what President Obama announces and what the allies end up putting in will get us to Gen. McChrystal's 40,000," said Lawrence Korb, a top defense official in the Reagan administration.

But France has already said no; the Germans say ask us later; Britain is throwing in a measly 500 more troops; and Canada and Holland are planning pullouts. Has Korb made a safe bet? Left-leaning doves like Kent charge that Afghanistan is "a Vietnam-style mess," and that defeatist message resonates with some U.S. allies.

Will we repeat a Vietnam military approach? Unveiled at West Point Tuesday night is a plan to exit, Southeast Asia-style, not achieve victory. The White House's so-called "rapid six-month deployment of 30,000 extra soldiers," or "quick punch" as the spin describes it, comes after nearly a year of transcendental meditation. And the U.S. will begin a full withdrawal within three years.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney described the president's endless "agonizing" as "the commander in chief making decisions apparently for ... small 'p' political reasons, where he's trying to balance off different competing groups in society."

This, he asserts, "has consequences for your forces in the field."

Vietnam was mishandled through the Johnson administration's policy of incrementalism and training the natives; the generals wanted massive U.S. force, fast. They didn't get it.

In World War II, we didn't train the remnants of the French and Polish armed forces, then mark, say, "1943" on our calendar as a deadline for departure. And in Iraq, the surge worked because our objective wasn't exit, but to defeat the enemy. Yet White House press secretary Robert Gibbs admitted Tuesday that the president is putting forward "an end-game in Afghanistan."

An "end-game"? In the war the president, traveling to Kabul in July of last year, said "is precarious and urgent here in Afghanistan, and I believe this has to be the central focus, the central front, in the battle against terrorism"?

Back in mid-2007, candidate Barack Obama, boasting hundreds of foreign policy advisers, gave the impression he would hit the ground running with an Afghanistan victory plan.

On March 27 of this year, he said, "Today, I am announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Now we're supposed to forget all that and instead begin a Vietnamesque preparation to exit.