J Alexander Thier of the U.S. Institute for Peace argues that Obama made a strong and eloquent case for our continued effort to stabilize both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now the question is: How do we get from here to there? Read his comments here.
Michael Cohen of the centrist New America Foundation says Obama's speech was long on platitudes but short on substance, and that if the goal was to build support for the war "by invoking the genuine fear many Americans feel about Islamic terror ... one would have to say mission accomplished." Read his comments here.
Kori Schake at the conservative Hoover Institution notes that President Obama finds himself in a difficult spot politically in Afghanistan, and that it is a problem of his own making. He is learning, Schake says, "that rhetoric has consequences. And costs." Read her comments here.
Brian Katulis at the liberal Center for American Progress argues that while the focus has been on the surge of troops, the key to winning in Afghanistan is a civilian surge. And he says that Obama's success with the civilian surge will have implications for his wider national security strategy. Read his comments here.
James Phillips at the conservative Heritage Foundation says that while Obama deserves praise for recognizing that Afghanistan needs more high-level attention, resources and troops, his plan falls short of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal said is needed to win the war. Read his comments here.***
On the blogosphere, meanwhile, President Obama took hits from liberals complaining about the surge, while getting grudging support from some on the right. A sampling:
No clear path. At the liberal Salon, Joan Walsh said: "Escalation is hard to see as an exit strategy. Obama has no clear path to 'victory.' We are likely to waste more lives than we save. I thought that was true before Obama's big speech, and I still think it now, afterwards."
Stop the madness. Leftwing filmmaker Michael Moore begged Obama to reverse course. "When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness."
Bring the troops home. MoveOn.org, a major supporter of Obama, is campaigning to fight the surge, saying "escalation only deepens our involvement in a quagmire. The President needs to hear that we want to bring the troops home, not send more to Afghanistan."
Not much new here. Writing for The New Republic, Michael Crowley notes that Obama didn't say much that he hadn't already said before. "Go back and read the president's March 27 speech explaining his first troop increase for Afghanistan; tonight's speech often reads like a lightly rewritten version of that one, this time with 30,000 new troops substituted for 17,000, and new specifics about a date for beginning a U.S. withdrawal (namely, June of 2011)."
Strange brew. Meanwhile Victor Davis Hanson, writing on the conservative National Review Online blog, called it "a strange speech. Deploring partisanship while serially trashing Bush at each new talking point. Sending more troops, but talking more about when they will come home rather than what they will do to the enemy."
Brave decision. Peter Feaver, writing for Foreign Policy's Shadow Government blog, said "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."
War president. Conservative Bill Kristol said that Obama "spoke as a war president. A good thing, too. Because when you're at war, you need a war president." But fellow Weekly Standard editor Fred Barnes said that, while Obama has the right strategy, "the personal commitment of the president to pursue the war against the Taliban and al Qaeda until they are defeated was not there. Obama did not take ownership of the war."
You don't lie. In the strange new respect department, Rep. Joe "You Lie!" Wilson applauded Obama for listening "to our commanders on the ground as they aggressively pursue a multi-dimensional counter-insurgency strategy to secure Afghanistan."
McChrystal clear endorsement. Obama did draw fulsome praise from one unsurprising source: Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who had recommended adding 40,000 troops to the Afghan war effort. McChrystal said in a statement that Obama "has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President's address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security."
