We do, however, know the we are stuck in Afghanistan with no hope for a solution.

Then rattling the feed trough will get him nowhere.

I too wondered about his math. We only have his word to go on (so far)–but it might be true that Afghanistan was the most important theme of the night to more than just Garry Wills.

Matt–I think you’re right that “presidential historians” are all about buffing the legacy. But, I think it’s good when presidents care about their future historical memory. That might make them less prone to disastrous decisions (see George W. Bush, who cares nothing about history, versus Bill Clinton, who cares a great deal about how he’ll be remembered. Me, I think Clinton was the better President. Then again, the only American historian who became President has a very mixed record: Woodrow Wilson!)

As I recall, Bush called in some scholars of modern Central Asia to brief him on Afghanistan and the Taliban in the leadup to the invasion in November, 2001. That didn’t do much good, in my view. I agree with you that it would be great if presidents consulted experts in the history and culture of more than just U.S. Americans, though–and maybe not just before launching an imperial war or invasion? But, we’re talking about the U.S. of A.

I don’t get the sense that Obama cares much about U.S. foreign policy, or that he has a vision he wants to impose on it. He’d like to preside and be admired by the people of the world, but he knows he can’t do much unless and until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are brought to an end. I’m not sure what his vision is beyond that. He seems to delegate a lot to Clinton, but taking key hotspots out of her portfolio (Afghanistan, Israel) appears to have introduced less clarity and more chaos into the whole situation.

The question becomes: has Wills really bolted the barnyard for wild pastures or is he trying to coerce Obama into filling the feed trough?

As far as I can tell from what Wills has written, a list of discussion topics was not prepared for this meeting, or disseminated afterwards, which leads me to believe that “off the record”, in the context of this meeting, was code for “please feel free to discuss topics in a wideranging manner, with a viewpoint to overarching themes/ideas instead of specific pet proposals, so that we can learn from the past without being in political danger should we follow your advice”. In other words, I bet the president was looking for more information about strategies/methods/things-to-keep-in-mind, and not specific directives on what to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Wills mentions in his article that Obama asked for more information when he brought up signing statements. I have a feeling Obama was hoping for a more substantive answer than “they’re illegal” – maybe something like a reference to how divisive and problematic Pres. Bush’s extensive use of signing statements was, or a discussion of how they muddy the waters for future law enforcement. Clarity of the law would be an issue of concern for the President, but hearing that it’s illegal from one presidential historian with no law degree when we’ve been doing it for ages without a peep from the White House counsel is just a waste of his time. Having the meeting be off the record means that they can talk a little more freely, but also that, should Obama have chosen afterwards to sharply curtail his use of signing statements or otherwise change his modus operandi he might not get pounced on in the press for being a flip-flopper. At the same time, if the meeting turned out to be useless for him, it preserves the dignity of the attendees.

Oh, and “at least four or five of the nine” only means about half the group. Which means the group was divided, and the takeaway for the president is that Afghanistan is both important and divisive. Something tells me he already knew that, and was acting accordingly.

I’d be more impressed if a sitting President (who ever he or she is, whichever party) actually betrayed an interest in something other than American history. I would be more intrigued if Obama had invited Jonathan Spense or R Bin Wong over for drinks and dinner, instead of someone who does Twentieth Century US Political history.

Because right now, when any sitting president wants to have dinner with a bunch of historians that do US presidential history, you know that they are pretty much thinking of themselves and their elusive ‘legacy’ first, and not really developing their sense of historical empathy.

This is not to put the hate on American history. I just think sometimes its worthwhile to look at the history of another country, in a different time, essentially a completely unfamiliar society and just get your head in a different place. I know I sound like a DFH, but seriously, its good to step out your own historical context for awhile. Then you can come back to try and see it in a different light.

And I agree with Indyanna and would take it a step further. Do historians really have a professional expertise that enables them to give competent policy advice? I mean, I can give some background on the Republic of Megalomania. I can tell some great stories about the Megalomanian Empire. I can probably explain some of the cultural context to policy makers. But really, that doesn’t mean I know or understand the political decisions of the Megalomanian Prime Minister better than the average journalist. In fact, I probably know less, because I spend most of my time reading nineteenth century newspapers, not current ones.

Yeah. Right.

As for the expertise question: anyone who’s played RISK knows never to get into an Asian land war, man. You don’t need a roomful of inteleckshuals, public or otherwise, to know that.