They may seem diametrically opposed, Ebbie, but they are not. A president can continue engaging in a grinding counter-insurgency battle like Afghanistan and still get labelled as a "wimp" by his domestic enemies anyway. Don't underestimate the mean-mindedness of partisan politics when it comes to stuff like that, and don't expect people's personal attacks on politicians to necessarily make any real sense at all. ;-D

There are a lot of Americans out there who are simply determined to find fault with Obama because he's a black man, he's a Democrat, they voted against him, and they would do so no matter what he did or didn't do. Those people will happily call him a "wimp" if they want...or a secret Muslim...or a secret Nazi...whatever they can come up with...whether or not he involves the USA in a continuing conflict in Afghanistan.

The one thing that could temporarily restore his credibility with many of those people would be a brand new all all-out dramatic "shock and awe" type war...specially if Iran was the target. You would then see his stock rise considerably, but probably only in the short term. That old "rally round the flag" mentality sets in fast when a new war starts, but the old attention span starts to dwindle if it bogs down into a long insurgency with no clear end in sight...and that's Afghanistan.

Anyway, my main point had to do with Obama's very articulate and diplomatic approach to dialogue. That's intelligent, but it gets you labelled as a "wimp" by people who prefer Reagan homilies or Rambo-style threats.