THE ISSUE: Whether Pres. Obama should follow George Bush’s lead in handling Mideast politics.

***

Victory in Afghanistan is critical for a number of reasons (“O’s Afghan Test,” Rich Lowry, PostOpinion, Sept. 4).

It is in no small way ironic that President Obama can see the security situation in Afghanistan clearly, while he had trouble (perhaps blinded by presidential ambition) acknowledging the same circumstances in Iraq.

The president will simply have to grit his teeth when the left’s wingnuts, for whom his election was a vapor-laden deliverance, speed up their hand-wringing and double the metronome setting on songs from the Kumbaya hymnal.

That irony will be on display when the man who did so much to turn the country against the effort in Iraq must call on Republicans for support in Afghanistan.

Paul Bloustein

Cincinnati

***

Rich Lowry writes that “Obama will need three especially Bushian qualities if he is to spare his country a humiliating retreat or an under-resourced inconclusive slog in Afghanistan: sincerity, perseverance and courage.”

To date, Obama has not demonstrated any of these qualities. His objectives are limited to paying back the special-interest groups that propelled him into the Oval Office in 2008 so that he can win again in 2012.

Lowry writes that Obama should ask, “What would Bush do?” in Afghanistan. President Bush minimized troop levels because the locals did not want to be involved. Instead, he helped the Iraqis, who wanted a free state and welcomed our help.

Don’t compare Obama with Bush. Bush is pro-America.

Elio Valenti

Brooklyn