Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
For oh so many reasons, we should not confuse Afghanistan with Vietnam.
Totally agree; two very different things and very different times. They will only become more alike if we are perceived as departing Afghanistan too quickly.
We went to Vietnam to stop the spread of communism and to support a democratic government in the South (or that is how I have it in my head)
Actually, the Kennedy brothers wanted to boost a stagnant economy and look tough but that's another thread.
We went to Afghanistan to punish AQ and to deny them Afghanistan as a sanctuary by facilitating the Northern Alliance's efforts to remove them from power.
Agreed. That was the initial impetus. That changed. You may know why, I do not.
Often what we pass off as "moral duty" is more often an issue of "face." Not saying that face is not important, just saying that it isn't moral duty.
Agree, as I said to WM , 'moral' for any nation is a misnomer; it's shorthand. Nations do not have morals or morally related issues.

Duty, however, does get closer to the truth. 'Face' doesn't bother me; spend more time in the FE and you get comfortable with all the permutations. The basic issue, really is 'obligation.' It matters to one what one construes as an obligation -- however, in this case, what matters a great deal is not how you or I consider the issue but how the rest of the world will construe things.
If "It would be embarrassing" was a legitimate rationale for not doing something that you otherwise should do or an excuse for poor or illegal behave, the world would be a very different place. Judges hear every excuse under the sun, but I would never advise a client to apply the "it would have been embarrassing" defense.
No one has said it would be embarrassing. That's not a really great diversionary attempt...

The issue, Counselor, is that the Client's predecessor for seven years voluntarily and publicly obligated himself and his heirs and assigns to fulfillment of a task which Client has recently affirmed. The question that arises is not the extent to which that obligation is binding or defensible before the law, nor one of potential embarrassment for failure to perform or fulfill an assumed obligation.

The question is one of consequences which are likely to accrue from a failure of performance and oral contract fulfillment.

Specifically, what effect will yet another abrogation have on community attitudes toward the Client? Given the known predilection of certain members of the community to seek out weaknesses and exploit them and some other members to encourage those actions provided they are not seen to be in support the potential for further attacks of suspicious provenance on said heirs and assigns would seem to be enhanced.

If you can guarantee with or without the force of law that such activities will not occur then the issue is moot. If you cannot so guarantee, Client would be advised to continue fulfilling his commitment to some extent...