VIDEO

TRANSCRIPT

Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on the Way Forward in Afghanistan and Pakistan - Transcript, White House.

Obama’s Address on the War in Afghanistan - Transcript, New York Times.

Obama's Afghan Policy Speech at West Point - Prepared Text, Washington Post.

NEWS

Obama Bets Big on Troop Surge - Peter Spiegel, Jonathan Weisman and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal. President Barack Obama announced Tuesday a surge of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, along with plans to begin withdrawing the reinforcements in 18 months - a potentially high-risk political and military strategy. Such a firm date for troop drawdowns was unexpected. Administration officials hope that will pressure Kabul to reform its notoriously corrupt government. At the same time, it allows the White House to begin bringing soldiers home ahead of the 2012 elections. With Tuesday's address, Mr. Obama made Afghanistan his war. He spoke at the grand and stately Eisenhower Hall, before a sea of gray-uniformed cadets, who face their own turn at war. "Afghanistan is not lost, but for several years it has moved backwards," the president said. "There is no imminent threat of the government being overthrown, but the Taliban has gained momentum. Al Qaeda has not reemerged in Afghanistan in the same numbers as before 9/11, but they retain their safe-havens along the border... In short: the status quo is not sustainable." The 35-minute address, punctuated only five times with applause, is likely to be remembered less for its eloquence than for the course it set for the US.

Obama Adds Troops, but Maps Exit Plan - Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Helene Cooper, New York Times. President Obama announced Tuesday that he would speed 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan in coming months, but he vowed to start bringing American forces home in the middle of 2011, saying the United States could not afford and should not have to shoulder an open-ended commitment. Promising that he could “bring this war to a successful conclusion,” Mr. Obama set out a strategy that would seek to reverse Taliban gains in large parts of Afghanistan, better protect the Afghan people, increase the pressure on Afghanistan to build its own military capacity and a more effective government and step up attacks on Al Qaeda in Pakistan. “America, we are passing through a time of great trial,” Mr. Obama said. “And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering.” The military escalation Mr. Obama described and defended in his speech to a national television audience and 4,000 cadets at the United States Military Academy here, the culmination of a review that lasted three months, could well prove to be the most consequential decision of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

Obama: US Security is Still at Stake - Scott Wilson, Washington Post. President Obama announced Tuesday that he will send 30,000 additional US troops to Afghanistan by next summer and begin withdrawing forces in July 2011, making his case to the nation that Islamist extremism in the region remains an enduring threat to the security of Americans. Obama cited the solemn responsibility he has felt as commander in chief as he outlined a sharp escalation that makes him the main architect of the eight-year-old war. The speech was among the most important of his presidency, and he sought to prepare the country for the heavier fighting and higher casualties that are likely to result from his strategy in the months ahead. Addressing an audience of cadets at the US Military Academy at West Point, many of whom will be sent to the war in the coming year, he warned bluntly that "huge challenges remain" before US forces begin leaving Afghanistan toward the end of his first term in office. Adding 30,000 US troops to the roughly 70,000 that are in Afghanistan now amounts to most of what Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces there, requested at the end of August. But by setting a date for when he will begin removing US troops, scheduled to number about 100,000 by next summer, Obama is effectively holding McChrystal to the urgent timeline that the general laid out in a bleak assessment of the situation.

Obama Vows to Break Taliban - Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes and Christi Parsons, Los Angeles Times. President Obama ordered 30,000 more troops into the fight against the Taliban and Al Qaeda on Tuesday, but warned that the United States could not afford an open-ended war and pledged to begin bringing home US forces in 18 months. Speaking to cadets at West Point, some of whom have fought in Afghanistan and others who may soon be deployed there, Obama said the administration would rush all the additional combat troops into the country by next summer. But those forces would not stay any longer than necessary to ensure US security, Obama said, noting that the cost of the decade's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now approaches $1 trillion. "I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Obama said. "This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak." But he refused to commit to a prolonged engagement.

Obama Pledges to Avoid Repeat of Vietnam - Matthew Mosk and Tom LoBianco, Washington Times. President Obama on Tuesday night declared that the Afghanistan war will not become a second Vietnam, and he pledged to start winding down the US incursion in 2011, after his accelerated strategy to defeat terrorist groups and erect a functioning government takes hold. Facing what was arguably the most perilous decision of his presidency, Mr. Obama deployed his most potent political weapon - his oratorical skill - in appealing to a war-weary American public for support of his plan to add 30,000 more troops to the battle. "I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan," Mr. Obama said in a 30-minute, prime-time, televised address, delivered before 4,250 Army cadets on the campus of the US Military Academy at West Point, NY. "This is the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak." Using vivid language to recall the horrors of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that first triggered the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, Mr. Obama said his new strategy will be built around a single, clear premise: to deny al Qaeda and other extremist groups the ability to nest in the lawless mountains and barren flatlands of Central Asia.

Obama's Afghanistan Speech: Five Key Points - Gordon Lubold, Christian Science Monitor. President Obama's Afghanistan speech announced a new, historic chapter for the mission there, announcing the deployment of 30,000 additional troops in the "epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by Al Qaeda" but also promising to begin withdrawing those forces within 18 months. The surge of forces will bring the total American commitment to nearly 100,000. It will be composed of several combat brigades, new trainers and support troops and will be deployed at "the fastest pace possible" to be on the ground and fighting by summer, an onerous task for a military deploying forces to a landlocked country with a crude infrastructure. The much-anticipated formal announcement of a policy in Afghanistan punctuates three months of soul-searching within the administration and, regardless of the outcome, represents an historical turning point for Afghanistan and the Obama administration. For days, however, administration officials have tried to explain that the strategy is less about the number of forces than it is the counterinsurgency strategy itself. But a properly resourced counterinsurgency relies on numbers of troops to secure the population, choke the insurgency, and train the indigenous forces. And in fact, the 30,000 troops Obama announced Tuesday is on top of an additional 32,000 forces that have deployed to Afghanistan since Obama took office in January.

Obama: 30,000 More US Troops To Afghanistan By Mid-2010 - Kent Klein, Voice of America. US President Barack Obama is sending 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan by the summer of 2010, and plans to start withdrawing American forces a year later. The president laid out his strategy for winning the war in Afghanistan. After several months of deliberation, President Obama has announced his plan for deploying additional troops to Afghanistan. He unveiled his strategy before an audience of cadets at the US Military Academy in West Point, New York, late Tuesday and a nation watching on television. "The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 - the fastest pace possible - so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers," said President Obama. The added troops will join an estimated 68,000 US service members already in Afghanistan, and tens of thousands of allied forces. The president spoke as Americans' support for the war continues to erode. A new survey by the Gallup organization shows only 35 percent of Americans surveyed approve of Mr. Obama's handling of the war - 55 percent disapprove.

President Obama Outlines Vision for Afghan War - Giles Whittell and Tim Reid, The Times. President Obama invoked the threat of nuclear terrorism and the memory of the 9/11 attacks in an address to the American nation last night that began a important new offensive in Afghanistan with 30,000 extra troops. Confronting head-on the criticism that he has dithered over the Afghan war, Mr Obama said that he owed the American people an exhaustive review of his options. He said that the situation he inherited in Afghanistan was not sustainable, that parallels with Vietnam were not applicable and that the threat to US security posed by the Taleban and al-Qaeda remained all too real. “I do not make this decision lightly,” he told an audience at West Point Military Academy, 50 miles north of New York. “I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicentre of the violent extremism practised by al-Qaeda.” After 92 days of slow and at times agonised debate over how to prosecute the war in Afghanistan, Mr Obama is suddenly a man in a hurry: he wants 30,000 US troops to hit the ground within the next six months, an enormous logistical and financial challenge. The troops would start withdrawing by 2011. The extra US troops would be supported by at least 5,000 more soldiers from other NATO members, he said.

Barack Obama Sets Date of July 2011 to Begin Withdrawal - Alex Spillius, Daily Telegraph. For the first time, the president set a timeline on America's military involvement in the country it invaded in October 2001. The White House hopes that the addition of 30,000 US troops, which will begin almost immediately, combined with the pressure of the new deadline, will spur the government of Hamid Karzai into action. In a speech televised live across America, Mr Obama said that "these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011". He continued: "Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan's fecurity forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. "But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country."

Barack Obama Orders 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan - BBC News. US President Barack Obama has ordered 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan but warned America would begin to withdraw its military forces by 2011. Soldiers will be deployed as quickly as possible, bringing US troop strength in the country to more than 100,000. World security was at stake, Mr Obama said, calling for more allied troops. The mission in Afghanistan, he added, was to defeat al-Qaeda, reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny them the ability to overthrow the government. Mr Obama reached his deployment decision after more than three months of deliberations and 10 top-level meetings with advisers. Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, welcomed the speech, saying he had been given "a clear military mission" and the necessary resources.

McChrystal: Strengthening Afghan Forces 'Most Important Thing We Do' - Joshua Partlow, Washington Post. The top American general in Afghanistan told his subordinates on Wednesday that strengthening the Afghan security forces would be "the most important thing we do in the future" while urging the soldiers under his command to redouble their efforts in the difficult months ahead. In a speech via videoconference to regional commanders around Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal said that the Afghan people would ultimately deliver the verdict about the success of the American troop buildup but that after President Obama's call Tuesday for 30,000 additional troops, "we have a level of commitment that we've not had before and that will change everything." "At the end of the day the success of this operation will be determined in the minds of the Afghan people. Counterinsurgency is always about what people think," McChrystal said. "It's not the number of people you kill. It's the number of people you convince. It's the number of people that don't get killed. It's the number of houses that aren't destroyed." But after eight years of fighting, many Afghans are skeptical that the US military, even with an additional 30,000 soldiers, can make them safer, defeat the Taliban or help reform the Afghan government enough to attract the widespread support of the people.

US Plan Draws Concern in Kabul, Pakistan - Anand Gopal, Wall Street Journal. Afghan officials expressed concern Wednesday over US President Barack Obama's aim to begin removing troops by 2011, saying that such a fixed timetable was not realistic. "We couldn't solve the Afghanistan problem in eight years, but now the US wants to solve it in eighteen months? I don't see how it could be done," said Segbatullah Sanjar, chief policy advisor for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Farahatullah Babar, chief spokesman for Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari, said President Obama called Mr. Zardari Tuesday to discuss his proposed plan. James Jones, the US national security adviser, also spoke on the phone Tuesday to Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, who is on an official visit to Germany. Richard Holbrook, the special US envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan spoke to Nawaz Sharif, the main opposition leader, a senior Pakistani official said. Senior Afghan officials said that they did not support the injection of more troops since previous troop increases were not successful in pushing back the insurgency. Many said that they would like to see the troop level remain steady but the troops should focus on the porous Afghan-Pakistan border to prevent the movement of insurgents.

Afghanistan, Pakistan and UN Comment on New US Strategy - Voice of America. An Afghan lawmaker is questioning the timing of President Barack Obama's announcement of a new US strategy for Afghanistan. Parliament member Daud Sultanzoi says he is surprised Mr. Obama is unveiling his strategy before Afghan President Hamid Karzai's new government is in place. Mr. Karzai was sworn in for a second term in November. Sultanzoi says it will be difficult for the US to hold a new Afghan government accountable when that government technically does not exist yet. He commented Tuesday, ahead of President Obama's speech outlining his new strategy. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi says the US should stay in neighboring Afghanistan at least five more years. In comments Tuesday, he said the US should not quit until its mission in the country is complete. The top United Nations official in Afghanistan is urging coalition forces to consider a "transition strategy" instead of an "exit strategy." Special representative Kai Eide says the transition approach allows Afghan authorities to gradually take on more responsibilities. Eide says President Obama may be considering the same strategy.

Many Fear Taliban Will Wait Out US Troop Presence - Laura King, Los Angeles Times. It's commonplace to hear Afghans describe a rush of mixed feelings when a Western military convoy roars past. They're glad for the protection from insurgents, but they don't want foreign soldiers in their homeland forever. So President Obama's pledge to send more troops now to fight the Taliban - coupled with talk of an eventual pullout - is a message that resonates with many here. Still, there are misgivings. Some Afghans fear that the US strategy will prompt the Taliban to simply wait out the Western presence. The militants, they warn, will melt away in the face of new US-led offensives, biding their time in the countryside or in Pakistan until the foreigners are gone and they can seek to seize power again. An American exit strategy "is not a good idea," said Mohammad Omar, governor of Kunduz, a northern province where insurgents have made significant inroads in recent months. "Afghan forces won't be in a position for a long, long time to safeguard our country." But in a reflection of Afghanistan's powerful tradition of national pride and mistrust of outsiders, others said it was time for this country to begin standing on its own.

Experts Fear Ousted Afghan Taliban will Simply Cross the Border - Alex Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times. Pakistanis do not doubt that President Obama's troop buildup will give US and allied forces more wherewithal to uproot Taliban militants from their strongholds in Afghanistan. What worries them is that the strategy will push Afghan Taliban over the porous border and bolster the ranks of brethren militants in Pakistan's tribal areas, security experts say. Pakistanis remain skeptical that Obama's new blueprint for winning the war in Afghanistan will pacify their volatile, unstable neighbor to the west. They put little, if any, trust in Afghan President Hamid Karzai, whose government has been crippled by widespread corruption, and they doubt that his army will be able to defend Afghanistan when American troops leave. Pakistan's most immediate worry, though, is that Obama's plan to send an additional 30,000 US troops could force Afghan fighters to seek refuge across the border with their Pakistani counterparts.

US Troops Skeptical of Afghan Abilities - Sara A. Carter, Washington Times. When nearly 60 tribal leaders gathered in a Taliban stronghold here recently to discuss mounting security challenges, US military commanders and staff listened attentively, but there were no representatives from Afghan security forces. "What government do we have?" asked Mohammed Nabi, a malik, or tribal leader, from the Kandahar region who acknowledged he was a Taliban sympathizer. "The only faces I see here are men from another country wearing uniforms like the Russians. We are left to fend for ourselves, protect ourselves, and there is no one here from Kabul who cares." President Obama's strategy for Afghanistan relies heavily on increasing the quality and quantity of Afghanistan's army and police. But eight years after the overthrow of the Taliban, the nearly 120,000-member Afghan National Security Forces remains a work in progress. Some US troops are skeptical that the locals will ever be able to step up and defend the Afghan people by themselves.

Afghan Reaction Mixed Toward New US Strategy - Sean Maroney, Voice of America. US President Barack Obama has announced his new strategy for Afghanistan, which has military and civilian goals. Mr. Obama spoke directly to the people of Afghanistan as he outlined his new strategy for their country. "I want the Afghan people to understand - America seeks an end to this era of war and suffering. We have no interest in occupying your country," he said. Following Mr. Obama's speech, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangin Dadfar Spanta spoke to reporters. He said the Afghan government considers President Obama's announcement important for Afghanistan, the region overall and future US-Afghan relations. But while the Afghan government responded positively to Mr. Obama's plan, the reactions from ordinary Afghans in Kabul were mixed.

Critics Denounce any Withdrawal Date - James Oliphant, Los Angeles Times. Republicans on Tuesday were largely supportive of President Obama's decision to commit 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, but they expressed grave doubts about his pledge to draw down forces in less than two years. One of Obama's fiercest critics was his former presidential rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who at a White House meeting before the speech questioned Obama on his promise to begin "transfer of our forces" out of the country by July 2011. Earlier in the day, McCain, who serves as the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, made his "serious" concerns public, saying such a withdrawal date was arbitrary and would embolden the Taliban. "The way you win wars is to break the enemy's will," McCain told reporters. "The exit strategy should be dictated by conditions on the ground."

Democrats Wary of the Commitment - Susan Milligan and Lisa Wangsness, Boston Globe. President Obama last night made the argument for 30,000 more US troops in Afghanistan with a heavy burden: He cannot count on his fellow Democrats for support. Key Democrats yesterday offered tepid endorsements or were openly skeptical of the president’s deployment decision. After Obama’s speech, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada praised Obama’s “sound strategy,’’ but pointedly noted that “our resources are not unlimited and our commitment is not open-ended.’’ The Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, offered no promise of support, and Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin threatened to try to block funding for the troop increase. In the House, many Democrats are skittish about escalating the war - and how to pay for it. Obama briefed leaders of both parties at the White House yesterday to discuss his plan, but that issue was left unresolved after the meeting, described by House Democratic whip James Clyburn as “civil and somber.’’

NEWS ANALYSIS

Obama Afghan Decision Has Far-Reaching Implications - Al Pessin, Voice of America. President Barack Obama's decision to deploy another 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan - and to also ask for more troops from coalition partners - has far-reaching strategic implications for the global effort to defeat violent extremists like the Taliban and al-Qaida. Our Pentagon correspondent reports on this important turning point in the war in Afghanistan and the Obama presidency. President Obama put it starkly in his long-awaited Afghan strategy speech Tuesday night. "What's at stake is not simply a test of NATO's credibility - what's at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world," said President Obama. The president said it is "vital" to send the additional troops, and to get them there by the middle of next year, a faster-than-expected deployment plan. "The president, in sending more troops to Afghanistan, is accepting responsibility for leadership of the war in Afghanistan," said Kim Kagan. That is Kim Kagan, a military historian and president of the Institute for the Study of War. She also served in a civilian advisory group assembled by General Stanley McChrystal, the top US and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who made the troop request that resulted in the president's deployment decision.

With Speech, President Makes the Conflict Truly His Own - Dan Balz, Washington Post. President Obama assumed full ownership of the war in Afghanistan on Tuesday night with a speech arguing that the fastest way out of the conflict is a rapid and significant escalation of it. But the muted response from key Democratic congressional leaders and the skepticism from Republicans about an exit strategy signaled that the president faces a stiff fight to sell the policy. Obama adopted the risky approach of both calling for a sizable troop surge - bigger in terms of percentage than the Iraq surge ordered by then-President George W. Bush - and outlining an exit strategy in the same speech. That was a clear acknowledgment of the fragile state of public opinion after eight years of conflict in Afghanistan, as well as the political divisions. Obama stood his ground against his critics and wrapped his new policy in a call for the kind of national unity that existed in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. His speech was clearly argued and reflected his determination to chart his own course to disrupt al-Qaeda while preventing Afghanistan from becoming a quagmire like Vietnam.

With Troop Pledge, New Demands on Afghans - Dexter Filkens, New York Times. President Obama’s commitment Tuesday night to redouble America’s campaign in Afghanistan left unanswered what is perhaps the most decisive question of all: will the Afghans step up too? In ordering the accelerated deployment of 30,000 fresh American troops to the country, Mr. Obama made clear that he would demand a far greater effort from President Hamid Karzai to stanch corruption in his government and from Afghan soldiers and police officers to fight Taliban insurgents. The extra American soldiers, the president said, would be on the ground only for a limited time to ensure the Afghans followed through. But that is the heart of the problem: in laying down the gauntlet for the Afghans, Mr. Obama is setting criteria for success that he and his field commanders may be able to influence, but that ultimately they will not be able to control. The most immediate challenge is President Karzai himself, the onetime Western favorite who presides over what is widely regarded as one of the most corrupt governments in the world. The graft permeating the Afghan government is so vast that for ordinary Afghans, it has begun to call into question the very legitimacy of Mr. Karzai’s government - and for Americans, the wisdom of fighting and dying to support it.

With Narrower Military Goals, Obama Ups the Ante - Karen DeYoung, Washington Post. Six months after saying he doubted that "piling on more and more troops" was the road to success in Afghanistan, and then warning his commanders not to ask for more, President Obama has given Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal nearly all the troops that he wanted. But in granting much of McChrystal's request, Obama has set narrower and more explicit objectives than the broad, Afghanistan-wide counterinsurgency his top military commander in the country had outlined, and given him a short timeline for achieving them. In Tuesday's prime-time speech, the president asked international allies for tangible proof of the new closeness they have affirmed with his administration, reviving demands for help that both he and his predecessor had largely abandoned. He issued sharp warnings to the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan to embrace his strategy. By upping the ante on all fronts, Obama is attempting to change the metabolism of a war that has sputtered along for more than eight years. His order to deploy 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan by summer, and then start withdrawing them a year later, constitutes an acknowledgment that the situation is dire, and that both the resources and the patience for dealing with it are limited.

Will Extra US Troops Make a Difference in Afghanistan? - BBC News. President Obama has announced that the US will send another 30,000 US troops to Afghanistan. Michael Codner, head of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, assesses what difference this will make on the ground. President Barack Obama had the difficult challenge of not just speaking to his own nation. He also needed to send the right messages to the government of Afghanistan, to the Taliban and al-Qaeda, to allies, and to the world at large. To that end, it will be important that subsequent rhetoric will develop issues - such as timelines for drawdown - with all of these actors in mind. Mr Obama has, as expected, announced an increase in 30,000 troops to begin in early 2010. This number is somewhat less than the 40,000 asked for by General McChrystal, commander of both Nato and US forces. However, he expects other nations to increase troop levels, and the additional 10,000 is feasible. For the UK, Gordon Brown has announced an additional 500, taking its total to 10,000 including 500 special forces and enablers already in theatre. The German government has indicated an additional 3,000. Leadership of this sort by the larger European nations could prompt smaller nations to bolster their stakes in the "strategic bargain".

With Key Role, Gates Stands to Get Credit, or Blame - Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal. President Barack Obama's new strategy for the flagging Afghan war is largely the handiwork of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who developed the idea of sending US reinforcements and then helped persuade administration officials to support it. The president's decision to deploy 30,000 new troops and largely maintain the current American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan is a strong endorsement of the defense secretary's views. At the same time, the new US approach is a repudiation of skeptics like Vice President Joe Biden, who favored sending few or no additional troops and shifting the US mission in Afghanistan toward killing or capturing individual militant leaders. The result is that Mr. Gates, a Bush administration holdover, will be more closely identified with the outcome of the Afghan war than he ever was with the Iraq war, whose strategy was largely set by then-President George W. Bush and his military advisers before Mr. Gates took the helm of the Pentagon in December 2006. If the new strategy is unable to turn the tide in Afghanistan, Mr. Gates will likely be blamed for developing a losing strategy. "Everyone talks about Afghanistan is Obama's war, but it's really Gates's war now in a way that it never was before," said a military official with recent experience in Afghanistan who is supportive of Mr. Gates's strategy.

Obama's Speech on Afghanistan War: Will Europe Send More Troops? - Ben Quinn and Dan Murphy, Christian Science Monitor. President Obama's speech from West Point Tuesday night will be about more than convincing the American people that his decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan is in the national interest. He needs to convince allies to send 10,000 more troops of their own, a prospect that looks uncertain at the moment. On Monday, Mr. Obama made calls to key leaders, particularly in Europe, explaining his plan. In his speech, Obama is also expected to reach out to military allies with an argument that Europe will be safer if it follows the US's lead with a troop surge of its own. Obama needs the Europeans because he is giving Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the operations commander for the Afghanistan war, 10,000 fewer troops than he requested. His advisers hope the shortfall will come from Europe. But getting more European troops for Afghanistan is proving to be something like getting blood from a stone, as Obama learned on Monday when British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, whose country has the second-largest contingent of foreign forces in Afghanistan, approved 500 additional troops for the war after weeks of hand-wringing. Britain currently has 9,500 soldiers in Afghanistan. France's Defense Minister Herve Morin bluntly ruled out adding to his country's 3,400 troops on Monday, saying France "has made an extremely big effort and that there is no question for now of raising numbers." German Chancellor Angela Merkel, whose force of 4,500 troops is the third largest in Afghanistan, said Monday she'll consider sending more troops only after an international conference on Afghanistan scheduled for London on Jan. 28.

Afghanistan Surge Faces Skeptical Public, Lawmakers - Leo Shane III, Stars and Stripes. President Barack Obama’s bold plan to push an additional 30,000 troops into Afghanistan but begin drawing down US forces in summer 2011 contrasts sharply with the assessment of military experts, including his own top general in Kabul, that the United States faces a long road ahead in the eight-year-old war. In his blunt late-summer assessment of the faltering war effort, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, warned that Americans must gird themselves for a “long-term” fight that does not lend itself to quick fixes and that will require “patience and commitment” from political leaders. During a visit to Afghanistan last year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he expected US troops would need a "sustained commitment" in the country for another three to four years. But Obama’s vision for Afghanistan’s near future - committing nearly 100,000 US troops to the country for the short-term and pressuring the Afghan government to step up its efforts in the next 18 months - emphasizes the idea that American intervention is not an open-ended promise in a war that has already cost 849 American lives, according to the latest Defense Department figures.

Critics From Across the Spectrum Rip Plan - Peter Walsten, Wall Street Journal. A barrage of instant criticism blasting President Barack Obama's new Afghanistan strategy from across the political spectrum signaled the challenges ahead in selling the plan to a skeptical public and Congress. Some of Mr. Obama's most loyal supporters among liberal grass-roots groups denounced the 30,000-troop escalation - despite a newly revealed plan for a quick drawdown that White House officials had hoped would mollify the left. Many Republicans, while supporting the troop increase, were quick to charge that the timetable for withdrawal would embolden US adversaries. Arizona Sen. John McCain warned that Mr. Obama risked telling the enemy "that you're coming and you're leaving." Mr. Obama's nationally televised address Tuesday kicked off a full-blown campaign by the White House to rally support for a troop escalation that could bring rising US casualties just as lawmakers are running for re-election next year. The plan appears designed to minimize political fallout - calling for a progress assessment a month after the November 2010 congressional elections and initiating the troop exit the following year as Mr. Obama begins ramping up his own re-election campaign.

Obama Announces 30K More Troops for Afghanistan - Spencer Ackerman, Washington Inpdependent. The revamped strategy and new troop increase - the second Obama has ordered in the first year of his presidency - comes after Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Obama’s commander in Afghanistan, issued a dire assessment in late August that time was running out to reverse gains that the Taliban-led insurgent syndicate has made over several years. “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) - while Afghan security capacity matures - risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible,” McChrystal wrote. Obama’s new troop deployment, which administration officials said was occurring as rapidly as possible, will fully arrive in Afghanistan right at the tail end of McChystal’s prediction, raising questions about what remains achievable. McChrystal will arrive on Capitol Hill early next week to testify before Congress about the war. After receiving McChrystal’s assessment and subsequent requests for additional forces, Obama convened a series of ten meetings with his national-security team, as well as consultations with foreign allies and outside experts. In his West Point speech, Obama substantially embraced McChrystal’s military focus on providing security for Afghan civilians. That approach, McChrystal argued and Obama endorsed, is meant to drain the insurgency’s base of support and to allow for governance and development assistance from the Afghan government, with the support of the international community, to arrive. Still, senior administration officials said on Tuesday that they anticipated another review of Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy by late 2010 to determine if the strategy is succeeding, or if another adjustment is necessary.

Between the Lines, an Expansion in Pakistan - David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, New York Times. President Obama focused his speech on Afghanistan. He left much unsaid about Pakistan, where the main terrorists he is targeting are located, but where he can send no troops. Mr. Obama could not be very specific about his Pakistan strategy, his advisers conceded on Monday evening. American operations there are classified, most run by the Central Intelligence Agency. Any overt American presence would only fuel anti-Americanism in a country that reacts sharply to every missile strike against extremists that kills civilians as well, and that fears the United States is plotting to run its government and seize its nuclear weapons. Yet quietly, Mr. Obama has authorized an expansion of the war in Pakistan as well - if only he can get a weak, divided, suspicious Pakistani government to agree to the terms. In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the CIA delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the CIA’s budget for operations inside the country.

Two Messages for Two Sides - Peter Baker and Nagourney, New York Times. President Obama went before the nation on Tuesday night to announce that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan. And Mr. Obama went before the nation to announce that he had a plan to end the war in Afghanistan. If the contrasting messages seemed jarring at first, they reflect the obstacles Mr. Obama faces in rallying an increasingly polarized country that itself is of two minds about what to do in Afghanistan. For those who still support the war, he is sending more troops. For those against it, he is offering the assurance of the exit ramp. He used language intended to appeal to different parts of the spectrum, at times echoing former President George W. Bush in reasserting America’s moral authority in the world while repudiating what he sees as the mistakes of the Bush years and insisting that “America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.” He tried to persuade people on both sides of the divide - and a Congress that must finance the war - to swallow their misgivings and come together long enough to see if his strategy works.

Obama Tries to Shore up American Support - Adam Brookes, BBC News. America and Nato will tough it out in Afghanistan for another 18 months. And then things will start to change. That was the central message of President Obama's speech to the nation on Tuesday night, in which he outlined his new strategy for Afghanistan. For those 18 months, the strategy provides a reinforced American and NATO presence to tackle the Taliban and to secure the country's key population centres, allowing the Afghan government and armed forces breathing space. It is a window of opportunity for Afghanistan, and for the government of Hamid Karzai. And, Mr Obama seemed to suggest, this would be President Karzai's final opportunity to demonstrate leadership while still enjoying the full weight of American military backing. Because in July 2011, the president said, the US and NATO would start handing areas of the country back to the control of Afghan security forces - allowing the drawdown of foreign troops to begin. So President Obama has signalled to Afghanistan that America is reinforcing and staying in the fight - but the commitment is "not open-ended".

The Puzzle for Congress: How to Pay for Plan - Paul Kane, Washington Post. President Obama's decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan ensures what was already inevitable: The cost of the wars in that country and Iraq is about to exceed $1 trillion. Less certain for Congress is how to pay for it. The new Afghanistan strategy will cost at least $30 billion more than current spending, and Democrats were divided Tuesday on what to do. Key leaders rejected a proposal from liberal members to impose a "war tax" that would hit workers earning as little as $30,000 a year, but they offered no plan of their own. Before leaving for the US Military Academy at West Point, NY, Obama huddled with about 30 top lawmakers from both parties at the White House, winning support from key Republicans for the new strategy. "Republicans are going to be supportive of funding for these troops," Rep. Jerry Lewis (Calif.), the senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, said after the meeting. But Lewis rejected calls for increased taxes and instead urged Obama to pare back money to federal agencies, many of which are slated to receive double-digit increases in funding for fiscal 2010.

Costs: By the Numbers - Washington Post.

What's Real Price Tag on War in Afghanistan? - Los Angeles Times.

Notable Moments of the Speech - Washington Post fact check.

EDITORIALS

An Afghan Strategy - Washington Post. President Obama outlined a strong but carefully calibrated commitment to Afghanistan and Pakistan Tuesday night. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander he appointed last summer, will get most of the troops he requested to implement a counterinsurgency strategy aimed at protecting the Aghan population - and he will get them sooner than he had expected. But Mr. Obama distinctly circumscribed the mission for US forces. They will aim not to defeat the Taliban but to reverse its momentum, secure major population centers and train Afghan forces so that they can take over the fight. The president's date for beginning a US withdrawal, July 2011, follows the planned arrival of the last reinforcements by only a year. Mr. Obama's troop decision is both correct and courageous: correct because it is the only way to prevent a defeat that would endanger this country and its vital interests; and courageous because he is embarking on a difficult and costly mission that is opposed by a large part of his own party. Importantly, the president did not set an end date or a timetable for the mission beyond July 2011; the pace of extracting US forces will depend on developments on the ground.

The Afghanistan Speech - New York Times. Americans have reason to be pessimistic, if not despairing, about the war in Afghanistan. After eight years of fighting, more than 800 American lives lost and more than 200 billion taxpayer dollars spent, the Afghan government is barely legitimate and barely hanging on in the face of an increasingly powerful Taliban insurgency. In his speech Tuesday night, President Obama showed considerable political courage by addressing that pessimism and despair head-on. He explained why the United States cannot walk away from the war and outlined an ambitious and high-risk strategy for driving back the Taliban and bolstering the Afghan government so American troops can eventually go home. For far too long - mostly, but not only, under President George W. Bush - Afghanistan policy has had little direction and no accountability. Mr. Obama started to address those problems at West Point, although the country needs to hear more about how he intends to pay for the war and how he will decide when Afghanistan will be able to stand on its own.

The Afghan Escalation - Wall Street Journal. One of the media's least accurate tropes is that, with the President's speech last night, Afghanistan is now "Obama's war." No, it isn't. Nations go to war, not merely Administrations, and President Obama's commitment of 30,000 more troops to that Southwest Asian theater is a national investment in blood and treasure on behalf of vital US security interests. We support Mr. Obama's decision, and this national effort, notwithstanding our concerns about the determination of the President and his party to see it through. Now that he's committed, so is the country, and one of our abiding principles is that nations should never start (much less escalate) wars they don't intend to win. The heart of the augmented strategy will be the deployment of some 30,000 additional troops, on top of the 21,000 more that have arrived this year. They'll be deployed in what capable and creative Generals Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus have described as a counterinsurgency strategy akin to the successful Iraq surge of 2007, albeit with important differences. As in Iraq, the goal will be as much political as military: Strike and degrade the resurgent Taliban, while also protecting more of the Afghan population as a way to win their cooperation and allegiance for the Afghan government.

OPINION

Surge, then Leave - David Ignatius, Washington Post. President Obama has been deliberating for months over his Afghanistan strategy. But when it came time to explain that decision Tuesday, he was cool and analytical - and seemed almost serene about a policy that he knows will be attacked from both sides of the aisle. "I am painfully clear that this is politically unpopular," Obama told a small group of columnists. "Not only is this not popular, but it's least popular in my own party. But that's not how I make decisions." Obama spoke during a lunch in the White House library. Shelved on the walls around him were books recording the trials and triumphs of his predecessors, who waged wars with sometimes agonizing consequences. But this president doesn't do agony - at least not in public. His lunchtime presentation of the details of the new strategy was focused and precise. He didn't talk about victory, and he didn't raise his voice. He did not attempt to convey the blood and tears of the battlefield, or the punishing loneliness of command. Even in this most intense and consequential decision of his presidency, he remains "no-drama Obama."

This I Believe - Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times. Let me start with the bottom line and then tell you how I got there: I can’t agree with President Obama’s decision to escalate in Afghanistan. I’d prefer a minimalist approach, working with tribal leaders the way we did to overthrow the Taliban regime in the first place. Given our need for nation-building at home right now, I am ready to live with a little less security and a little-less-perfect Afghanistan. I recognize that there are legitimate arguments on the other side. At a lunch on Tuesday for opinion writers, the president lucidly argued that opting for a surge now to help Afghans rebuild their army and state into something decent - to win the allegiance of the Afghan people - offered the only hope of creating an “inflection point,” a game changer, to bring long-term stability to that region. May it be so. What makes me wary about this plan is how many moving parts there are - Afghans, Pakistanis and NATO allies all have to behave forever differently for this to work.

Counterinsurgency Incoherence - Steve Schippert, Washington Times. In war, and particularly in an Afghanistan counterinsurgency effort, there are always three sides to the coin: the good, the bad and the ugly. This is especially true in President Obama's new Afghanistan strategy, finally announced to the American public Tuesday from a West Point backdrop. The prescribed influx of much-needed American warriors onto the battlefield is clearly and rightly the good. And the good can withstand the bad, a Taliban enemy in the absence of reliable partners in the Afghan and Pakistani governments. But the glimmering light of the good will surely be eclipsed by the ugly, an incoherence of strategy beneath the surface sheen of a surge. The devil is always in the details. Sending additional troops, whether decided upon from intellectual deliberation or from political calculation, is the right call. The details of their usage, the never-ending questions of "exit strategy" and the general unwillingness to commit to victory is wholly unacceptable. As the commander in chief, the president must act with a clarity of mind and mission. In doing so, he sends a message that the American people will do what is necessary, for as long as necessary, to defeat those who would oppress others or hide while plotting additional attacks on innocents in Afghanistan, Pakistan or here in the United States. The necessity in doing so should be clear, as the Afghan people are resistant to American aid due to the questionable commitment we've made to them. In this vital aspect, the commander in chief has failed.

The Afghan-Pakistan Solution - Pervez Musharraf, Wall Street Journal. My recent trip to the United States has been an enriching experience, during which I had a very healthy discourse with the American public and an opportunity to understand their concerns about the war in Afghanistan. One question I was asked almost everywhere I went was, "How can we stop losing?" The answer is a political surge, in conjunction with the additional troops requested by Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Quitting is not an option. A military solution alone cannot guarantee success. Armies can only win sometimes, and at best, create an environment for the political process to work. At the end of the day, it is civilians, not soldiers, who have to take charge of their country. After decades of civil war and anarchy, the Taliban established control over 95% of Afghanistan in 1996. Unfortunately, the Taliban imposed their strict interpretation of Islam on the country. Nevertheless, I proposed to recognize the Taliban regime, in the hope of transforming them from within. Had my strategy been enacted, we might have persuaded the Taliban to deny a safe haven to al Qaeda and avoided the tragic 9/11 attacks.

The Reality of Afghanistan - Tim Rutten, Los Angeles Times. As his address at West Point on Tuesday night suggests, Barack Obama's presidency is turning out to be historic in more than the obvious way. Obama and Harry Truman are the only presidents to take office with the country engaged in two wars. (Though history lumps them together as World War II, the conflicts with Germany in Europe and with Japan in the Pacific were - in military terms - distinct struggles.) And even if he wins a second term, Obama also is very likely to be the first chief executive since Abraham Lincoln called on to function as a wartime commander in chief for the entirety of his presidency. War and economic crisis are certain to define Obama's presidency, despite his hopes for a dramatic expansion of opportunity through domestic reforms, such as universal access to affordable healthcare. Tuesday's address thus will long stand as a milestone, and a reminder that history dishes out its challenges without respect to the agendas of politicians or parties. By meeting Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's request for tens of thousands of additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan, the president has done two things: He has reaffirmed the sincerity of his campaign declaration that the Afghan war is one of necessity while that in Iraq is one of choice. Equally important, he has accepted his advisors' belief that the hard-won lessons of the Iraqi conflict are transferable to Afghanistan.

An Iraq-style 'Surge', or Another Vietnam? - Anne Davies, Sydney Morning Herald. Afghanistan is not another Vietnam, President Barack Obama declared just a few minutes after announcing that America would send another 30,000 troops in time for the summer fighting season of next year. But just saying so does not make it so. The fact is America has taken another lurch towards much deeper engagement in Afghanistan's affairs, even as it promises that it will be temporary and troop withdrawals will begin just a year later, in mid-2011. At the same time as sending more troops, the President has promised a matching second pillar of a more effective civilian strategy. Virtually every counter-insurgency expert agrees this is essential. But in a country like Afghanistan, ravaged by decades of war, with one of the lowest literacy rates and per capita gross domestic products in the world, with no reliable transport, electricity, water, and few schools, this is a huge task. In his speech, the President emphasised the need to tackle corruption - a hot issue with Americans. But he was silent on what else this second pillar might involve, other than mentioning agricultural assistance.

THINK TANKS

CNAS Experts Comment on President Obama’s Afghanistan Policy - Center for a New American Security national security experts.

Obama's Withdrawal Date a Controversial Gambit - Bernard Gwertzman, Council on Foreign Relations. CFR's top defense policy expert Stephen Biddle says a controversial part of President Obama's speech on Afghanistan was his pledge that US forces would begin to withdraw in July 2011. He says Democrats critical of the war "will be upset with the 30,000 troop increase, and how close it is to what [Afghan Commander General Stanley] McChrystal requested. And my guess is they will probably not be satisfied with the idea that there's a date for the beginning of a process that has no specified end." He says Afghan President Hamid Karzai will be worried about the depth of the American commitment and al-Qaeda would be encouraged by the prospect of a withdrawal. Biddle says he would have preferred the President not to have been so precise on a date.

Obama’s New Strategy in Afghanistan - Anthony H. Cordesman, Center for Strategic and International Studies. One must be careful as pundits rush to praise or criticize President Obama’s speech and his decisions regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan. It takes no great vision to predict that much of their commentary will be partisan, conceptual, and largely speculative. The key problem is a rush to judgment before many of the details that will shape the new strategy are clear, and long before the new strategy’s actual implementation shows whether or not it will be successful. It will be months before the President’s decisions can become facts on the ground and it will probably at least a year or longer before it is clear whether it can be successful. In the real world, war is only 10% concepts and strategy, and 80% quality of management and actual execution. So what can you say on the basis of a relatively short political speech, before many of the most critical details are clear, and before its key elements can be implemented? One key point is that the President kept to the objectives he had advanced in March, and talked about breaking the Taliban’s momentum in the next 18 months. There also are a number of others.

Afghanistan Strategy on Stage: Five Key Questions for the Administration - Richard Fontaine and John Nagl, Center for a New American Security. The upcoming congressional testimony of the administration’s national security team on Afghanistan may be the most pivotal since September 2007, when General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testified about the “surge” in Iraq. At that time, Crocker and Petraeus appeared before skeptical congressional committee members, many of whom were unconvinced by reported progress in Iraq and unsure about the way forward. The testimony galvanized media attention and helped turn the political debate in Washington away from considerations of troop withdrawals. Similarly, the testimony of Obama administration officials about the way ahead in Afghanistan will garner enormous attention from Congress, the American people, and others around the world. Whether their words will alter the political dynamic on this critical issue remains to be seen; what is certain is that the world will listen closely for indications of US intentions and resolve. As this testimony takes shape, Congress and the administration should consider five key questions.

BLOGS

Obama Tries to Escape from Afghanistan, but Won’t - Robert Haddick, Small Wars Journal. The most controversial feature of President Obama’s strategy for Afghanistan is his decision to begin withdrawing US forces from the country in July 2011. This feature (no doubt aligned with his re-election plans - why else withdraw troops at the start of the Afghan summer fighting season?) is a fatal flaw and makes it very likely that little will go right for his Afghan strategy. Indeed, it negates the point of hastily adding over 30,000 US and European soldiers in 2010. Over the past three months President Obama and his team have analyzed the Afghanistan problem from first principles. Yet in spite of this effort, their solution is not likely to make the problem go away. Regrettably, the next few years are likely to reveal that America still lacks a winning strategy for modern irregular conflict. President Obama wishes he could have given two speeches on Afghanistan. The first would have been heard only by the Taliban, Pakistan’s governing elite, and by Afghanistan’s population wondering which side of the fence to jump to. Obama’s message to this group would have been, “I am escalating this war in order to suppress the Taliban, wipe out al Qaeda, and create space for Afghanistan to take over the war.” The second speech would have been heard only by the American electorate, and especially those who most passionately supported his campaign in 2008. His message to this group would have been, “I will get America out of the Afghan war, starting in July 2011.”

Now I Have What I Need: McChrystal - Greg Grant, DoD Buzz. When Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal laid out his strategy this past summer, the one that was then leaked to the press, he said success required a “discrete jump” in troop strength to knock the Taliban on their heels and regain the initiative. Last night, Obama ordered just that, an additional infusion of 30,000 troops, bringing US ground force strength in Afghanistan to nearly 100,000 by the middle of next year. Within hours of Obama’s speech, NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the alliance would send a fresh infusion of at least 5,000 troops, and probably more; that would bring the non-US NATO contingent to 48,000 soldiers. The Afghan Army numbers around 94,000 troops and the Afghan police bring another 93,000 shooters to the fight. That will give McChrystal around 330,000 troops with which to launch a counteroffensive in 2010.

Obama’s War - Jules Crittenden, Forward Movement. About that speech, I heard it refered to by one Obama fan as “steadfast.” Once you get past the stealth Bush-bash, the excuse-making and subtle apologies, I guess. There was the steadfast decision to nickel and dime the commander in the field, and the steadfast timetable. I’d hate to be a grunt in some remote outpost, wondering where the other 10,000 guys are when I need them, or a commander in Bagram checking my watch. With this surge, Afghanistan is Obama’s war now. He’s put his political stamp on it, spent the last 10 months considering it … because strategy considerations did not begin in September, a month after McChrystal dropped his report in Obama’ lap. They started in a matter of weeks if not days after he took office, and he’s on his second escalation. Theoretically 18 months is a reasonable surge window, though as they say, the enemy gets a vote, and it would be a lot more reasonable if he was filling the full troop request.

Shadow Pentagon’ Chief Questions New Afghan Strategy - Noah Shachtman, Danger Room. John Nagl is the president of the Center for a New American Security, a think tank with such close ties to Obama’s Defense Department that it’s been called the “Shadow Pentagon.” So you’d think he’d be all gung-ho about the administration’s new strategy for Afghanistan. Instead, in a talk with Danger Room, Nagl had plenty of criticism for the approach, to go along with the more-expected praise. It’s an interesting position for Nagl, given that his former boss at CNAS is now the Pentagon’s policy chief, and one of his deputies serves as an advisor to to Afghan commander General Stanley McChrystal. In a matter of weeks, a Marine Regimental Combat Team will be heading to Afghanistan’s Helmand province, to reinforce the thousands of marines already patrolling this poppy-growing heartland. It’s a move Nagl - and some other military observers - find questionable. Helmand is relatively-sparsely populated. And it pales in importance to neighboring Kandahar province, the capital of Afghanistan’s south and the birthplace of the Taliban. “I didn’t understand putting the first troops into Helmand this summer,” Nagl says. “I’m having a hard time trying to convince myself of it now.” Nagl, a former Lieutenant Colonel who helped author the military’s counterinsurgency field manual, was also skeptical of President Obama’s assurances that troops can start to come home in 2011.

New US Strategy in Afghanistan: War With the Pashtun - David Wood, Politics Daily. For the first time since the war began eight years ago, American combat forces will surge directly against the Afghans who for decades have fought intruders most fiercely: the ethnic Pashtuns who populate the ranks of the Taliban from their homelands in eastern and southern Afghanistan. The strategy shift, outlined by President Obama on Tuesday night in a speech at West Point, takes a major gamble: that deploying 30,000 additional US troops into the Pashtun heartland will break their fighting capabilities faster than the presence of the American "intruders'' will boost Taliban recruiting among the 6 million Pashtun men of fighting age. The reinforcements, which Obama said would be sent into Afghanistan "at the fastest pace possible,'' will raise the total US force to 98,000. White House officials said Tuesday they hope the NATO allies will add to the 40,000 European and Canadian troops already there.

What Would Mullah Omar Think? - Tom Donnelly, Center for Defense Studies. In sum, the president will change the enemy’s battlefield calculus. This won’t be the decisive moment, but it can set the stage for big things, particularly in 2011. One of the reasons to anticipate the coming congressional testimony from McChrystal and others is that they will not only report on their plans for the future, but they will update our understanding of what’s been happening this year. There’s been a lot more fighting in recent months than there has almost since the 2001 invasion, particularly in the Taliban strongholds of Helmand and Kandahar provinces. As was the case in regard to Iraq, Washington’s grasp of the tactical situation is probably about six months behind battlefield realities in Afghanistan.

Right Strategy, Wrong Message - Jamie McIntyre, Line of Departure. President Barack Obama’s address out­lin­ing his strat­egy for suc­cess in Afghanistan had all the fla­vor of a half­time speech in which the coach exhorts his team to do just enough to win, but no more. “I refuse to set goals that go beyond our respon­si­bil­ity, our means, or our inter­ests,” intoned the President last night. Those are not words that inspire. The pres­i­dent con­veyed his ambiva­lence about the mis­sion and the prospects for suc­cess, espe­cially when he declared his intent to begin pulling US troops out in July 2011, regard­less of where things stand. “It must be clear that Afghans will have to take respon­si­bil­ity for their secu­rity and that America has no inter­est in fight­ing an end­less war in Afghanistan.” Again the mes­sage that come through is that America is leav­ing in 18 months. That may be a real­is­tic goal. But telegraph­ing it so clearly sends the wrong mes­sage… to our troops, our part­ners, and our ene­mies. The Taliban now know just how long they have to go to ground, until the Americans begin pack­ing up.

Bad Arguments Never Die, They Just Go to Afghanistan - Marc Lynch, FP Abu Aardvark. I've never agreed with the widely aired opinion that Obama should just make a decision, whether it's right or wrong (as long as that decision is to escalate, presumably). I'm impressed that his team seems to have given serious thought to the relationship between al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the legitimacy of the Karzai government, the lessons of the Soviet experience, how to pre-empt future demands for more troops, how to maximize leverage, and how to craft an exit strategy. It doesn't mean that they'll get the policy right - or even that there's a right policy to find. I predicted weeks ago that the result of the strategy review would be a decision to add 30,000 or so troops, it wouldn't work, hawkish critics would give Obama no credit for the decision, and next year we could have the whole argument over again. Here's to hoping that Obama's speech next week proves me wrong.

Three-Quarters of the Way There - Max Boot, Contentions. President Obama is giving General McChrystal about three-quarters of what he wants - 30,000 of 40,000 troops. Thus it is appropriate that his speech was about three-quarters good. The good parts were his signals of resolve and determination. He said, for example, that we have a “vital national interest” in Afghanistan and that we are there “to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country.” The problem is that there is plenty of reason to doubt Obama’s resolve in Afghanistan. On the plus side, he committed to sending more troops than some White House aides wanted, and he committed to sending them at once, refusing to draw out the process by announcing “off ramps” in the deployment plan or “benchmarks” that the Afghan government must meet before we send more forces. But then he undercut some of the urgency he conveyed by pledging “to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011.” If this is such a vital national interest - and it is - why is our commitment so limited? How can he be so confident that the extra 30,000 troops - who will be lucky to arrive in their entirety by next summer - can accomplish their ambitious mission in just a year?

Channeling Eisenhower - Andrew Exum, Abu Muqawama. In keeping with my abstinence from daily blogging, I will not have any in-depth comments on the president's speech tonight or tomorrow morning, but I was struck by President Obama's reference to Eisenhower. I do not know if President Eisenhower would have agreed with the current president's direction on Afghanistan, but I think he would have certainly recognized the considerations behind his decision-making process.

Culminating Point - CDRSalamander, USNI Blog. Keep that in mind as we go forward. What we saw last night was the Culminating Point politically in AFG. The military side, numbers wise, will come later. It is the political that is the most important though. In the modern nation state, it has always been. Our enemies know that even if many on our side do not. Last night’s speech needs to be read in detail, even if you listened to it. Our enemies are - so should you. In the build up to the CINC’s speech at West Point, I have to admit I was being an optimist. In my head, I decided that I had a rough idea what was coming, and as a result was going to title this post, “Give the CINC some room to work.” I wanted to support my President. Take 3/4 of the package and push on. I have a buy-in in AFG - I want us to succeed, victory if you will. With strategic patience, and going with what we know works - this is doable - doable with the right military and political leadership. Our military leadership at the in-theater operational and strategic level is good and sound. Our COIN built around Shape-Clear-Hold-Build is sound. As in all war though, you need the political to be at the same level of dedication and desire. That is the CINC. That is why this speech was so important. We were at an inflection point - we needed a home run or at least a double. What we had instead was our #4 hitter in the line-up standing at the plate hoping for a walk.

Is Obama Channelling Somebody? - David Betz, Kings of War. Afghans loathe the Taliban by whom they were governed for a while, an experience which they did not much like. This is an advantage, but not to be overstated. A successful insurgency does not require the love of the population. It requires the active support of a fraction of it–apathy or ambivalence of the remainder is sufficient. This is all in Galula, for God’s sake. A ‘popular’ insurgency is not popular in the sense that the prettiest girl in school is popular; it is popular in the sense that it has set its sights on detaching the loyalty of the population from the government and attaching it to themselves by a variety of means including physical intimidation which in no way contributes positively to the degree of affection which said population may feel toward it; the fact is that the hated Taliban would seem to have greater credibility than the GOA in large swathes of the country. When they tell the people ‘we’re the best government you’re going to get, believe it’ people tend to believe it. This ‘not facing a broad-based popular insurgency’ thing is a red herring. Will be it be dead-enders next?

The Obama Speech: Still Not Quite Sure What Victory Looks Like - Joshua Keating, FP Passport. No matter how forceful his explanation of the stakes in Afghanistan, Obama was unlikely to convince those who don't see the war as worth it. On the other hand, I think that viewers were waiting to hear the president set out an specific and achievable goal. Clearly we're not building Sweden in Central Asia, but I believe it was important for the president to give an idea of what an acceptable end-state would be, by the time troops start to pull out in 2011.

The Speech: Not Great, but a Brave Decision at Long Last - Peter Feaver, FP Shadow Government. It was not a great speech but it was, at long last, a brave decision and President Obama deserves (and needs) the support of the loyal opposition. As speechcraft, it was disappointing. The front section was oddly defensive, with its graceless passive voice avoidance of crediting the old policies and its needless albeit veiled shots at Bush, its tendentious rendering of the Afghan war timeline, and most unfortunate of all, its artless spin ("there has never been an option before me that called for troop deployments before 2010, so there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war.") The discussion of the stakes and the rationale for this option over alternatives and the explanation of the logic of this strategy (and why it will work when previous ones did not) was flat. It was certainly helpful that he included the middle section with its explicit pre-buttal of three counterarguments, but he straw-manned those critiques and I did not find his counterarguments very persuasive (even on the ones I agreed with). The penultimate section, a laundry list of to do items and bromides sounded like a flat State of the Union address (mercifully without the jack-in-the-box response to applause lines).

The Speech's Aftermath - Gunslinger, Ink Spots. So while a lot of folks will be hashing out a lot of opinions and ideas, some who will try and prove how right they were, let's not forgot that 30,000 service members and their families just had their lives significantly changed tonight - for better and worse. They're not victims, to be sure, but this will affect them - and the Afghan population - in very personal ways. So, just keep that in mind during the course of this week and the coming months.