I'm sorry, that would be supposing there was evidence of real links between Al Queda and the Afghanistan Taliban, you know the guys the CIA put in power when they opposed Russian occupation. The links thus far revealed in no way justify the cost and the civilian lives lost in that conflict.
Going into Afghanistan to take out Al Qaeda was probably necessary. Staying there to engage in large-scale regime change probably wasn't.
AFAIK Obama hasn't invaded two countries for bull!@#$ reasons yet
In all frankness, I think that, in 50 years, people will look back on our present period and refer to "Bush-Obama" foreign policy as a unitary thing. The main disputes are not hawk vs. dove. Drawdowns would have happened eventually under any president, Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan, and Obama has pursued the global war on terror in other countries with more aggression than Bush ever did. Consider the raid that got Osama bin Laden. Consider the number of drone strikes, especially in the Horn of Africa. Consider the response in Libya vs. the response in the Sudan.
Consider the relationships between their respective "Cairo speeches." Bush's which was about democracy, Obama's which was... not. Consider the expansion of democratic rights in almost every Middle Eastern nation under Bush, and the Arab Spring during Obama's time. Neither can take credit for either, but both, ultimately, took fairly similar responses. Consider Kyoto Protocal and global environmental treaties.
Post 9/11 foreign policy for the US has not yet seen a major change in guiding principles or operating practices. Our allies/enemies lists have not substantively changed. Obama has opened NEW military bases abroad, not reduced them.
I'm not saying that's good or bad. Just saying that their foreign policies aren't that different, and the historical judgment may be quite different from our current judgment.
