A novel way to argue for war 
 
 George W. Bush was able to successfully prosecute the Iraq war because, against all reason and much longer than necessary, he believed in it. Barack Obama may be able to successfully prosecute the war in Afghanistan because he, too, believes in it. Faith alone cannot win a war, but without it defeat is certain. 
 
 The question regarding Obama and Afghanistan was always whether he could be a wartime president. This is not the sort of presidency anything in his past prepared him for. It means finally owning a war that will claim the lives of many more Americans -- and, given the history of these things, risk his presidency. Korea defeated Truman, Vietnam doomed Johnson and Iraq put a dunce cap on Bush. 
 
 Tonight Obama showed a steely resolve, a rhetorical determination that has been lacking up to now. Since taking office, he has poked at the Afghanistan problem, turned it over and over in his mind, called meeting after meetings -- three months and nine meetings of policy review. His body language was that of a man in a fix, a groom about to marry against his better judgment. Can’t I have some more time? 
 
 Not tonight, though. He recited the arguments against a troop buildup and gave his responses. He told the American people why he felt the war was worth fighting -- why, in fact, it had to be fought. He put himself at the head of the column and told us where he was marching us and when he would take us home. It was all good stuff, well written and spoken with conviction. 
 
 I don’t think it will work. I don’t think we can prevail in Afghanistan -- not with another 30,000 troops. It would take more than that -- and more time than we will give it. We are a nation that’s tired of war, and Afghanistan is so far way. We are slipping, though fatigue into a kind of isolationist stupor. 
 
 I hope Obama succeeds. But if he does nothing else, he showed that it is possible to urge a nation to war by using reason and logic, facts and figures -- and not by waving the bloody shirt of patriotic fibs. George Bush had faith in his war but not in the American people. Obama seems to have faith in both. ||||| « Key Democrats React To Obama | Main | Obama's Speech: Morning Review Thoughts » 
 
 One of the tropes of modern politics is to establish oneself as a sensible centrist, a Third Way realist surrounded by naivety on both sides. And so Bill Clinton rejected, he said, the "brain dead politics" of the left and right and revived the term, Third Way, once used for non-aligned nations navigating between communism and capitalism. Obama's notion that one group favors the status quo while another wants a massive escalation in Afghanistan ,and a third wants a total withdrawal is a bit of a misnomer. I haven't heard anyone argue for continued troop levels. The argument has either been to add troops of various numbers or get out as soon as possible. 
 
 That said, the president delivered a thoughtful and sober speech outlining how we got into Afghanistan and how, he thinks, we can get out. The logic wasn't flawless. John McCain has asked why we should set an arbitrary date of July 2011 to begin withdrawal of troops. It's a good question. 
 
 
 
 But what was most compelling was the speech's tone. Its almost Kissingerian focus on national self-interest and realism. There weren't Wilsonian-Bushian flourishes about democracy. About the best he could say about Hamad Karzai was that his eleciton complied with the laws of Afghanistan. Women's rights? Bush laced his Iraq speeches with talk of Saddam's rape rooms. And the lifting of the burqa was one of the things that gave our mission to Afghanistan its nobility, even if it was born of retaliation. The open invitation to individual Taliban to defect was built on the idea, seen in Iraq, that you can buy off your enemies. 
 
 
 
 The logic is the same as health care: we must spend more now to save later. It's a difficult notion to sell but it carries with it the hope of something better. This wasn't Bush on an aircraft carrier or Obama in Iowa railing about Iraq or Hillary and Iraq. This was a community organizer turned war president. He had always argued that Afghanistan was the good war, the one that should have been the center or our attention. For years the Left in America echoed that line until Iraq started to ease, and now many of the Afghanistan-only shouters have become advocates of a full retreat. That's their right. But if Obama lost Mother Jones and The Nation and Salon tonight, he's hoping he can get them and everyone else back with something resembling victory on the ground, however incomplete. Let's hope he's right. ||||| AP/Charles Dharapak 
 
 I may be the only person in the United States who was trying to wait for President Obama's Afghanistan speech to make up my mind about his war plans. Of course, I mostly failed at that. Sure, all of Obama's options are bad, but still, few decisions seem as clear-cut as this one. 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, afterward. 
 
 At the moment he needed all of his persuasive powers, Obama gave the worst major speech of his presidency. I admit: I expected to be, even wanted to be, carried away a bit by Obama's trademark rhetorical magic. But I wasn't, not even a little. I found the speech rushed, sing-songy and perfunctory, delivered by rote. I despise the right-wing Obama-Teleprompter taunts, but even I wanted to say, Look at your audience, not the damn Teleprompter, Mr. President. Obama looked haggard, his eyes deeper set, and I believe this decision pained him. But I'm not sure even he believes it's the right decision. Neocon Danielle Pletka tweeted happily mid-speech: "So far, could be Bush speaking," and later, approvingly: "count me gobsmacked." That makes two of us. Rep. Maxine Waters spoke for me on "Countdown" tonight when she opened her remarks by telling Keith Olbermann: "I'm very saddened." 
 
 On specifics: Obama lost me early by rehashing the history of our decision to invade Afghanistan, using mawkish and tired 9/11 imagery. We all know why we went in, and most Democrats supported it: to topple the Taliban government that harbored and supported al-Qaida as it plotted to kill almost 3,000 people in 2001. The question is why are we escalating now? I didn't hear a compelling reason. Obama sugarcoated the problems with the corrupt Karzai administration, and this year's disputed election, with a dismissive "although it was marred by fraud" it was "consistent with the constitution." Wow, that's inspiring. He told Karzai "the days of the blank check are over," but barely defined what that means. The most chilling story I read today was Juan Cole's, on the way Afghanistan's parliament is MIA, and the country's various governmental agencies, from ministries of public works to agriculture, have spent a fraction of the limited funds they have available. It made me hugely pessimistic that Obama's promise of a "civilian surge" had a prayer of making a difference. He needed to address the dysfunction within the Afghan government more specifically to convince me that he could find a way out. 
 
 The president also fudged by calling the Afghanistan/Pakistan border "the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda" -- yet it seems to me it actually matters to our strategy which side of the admittedly blurry border is the bigger problem. Finally, maybe most disputably, Obama insisted "we are not facing a broad-based insurgency." It may not be country-wide, but we are certainly facing a broad-based Pashtun insurgency, one that only seems to grow the more troops we send. Obama invoked Iraq -- mistakenly, in my opinion, many times -- but to the extent that the "surge" there was a limited if likely temporary success, it was because it met up with the "Sunni awakening," a homegrown rebellion against al-Qaida and a weariness with war among formerly insurgent Sunnis. Obama needs a "Pashtun awakening," but so far the only one on the horizon features Pashtuns waking up to fight the U.S. Some liberals might be encouraged by his promise to begin withdrawing troops by the summer of 2011, but given the uncertainty of the strategy, who can trust that? 
 
 So what's an increasingly disappointed Democrat and Obama supporter to do? 
 
 First of all, it would help to admit that in this case, Obama is keeping a campaign promise, not breaking one. Most liberal Obama backers probably either disagreed with his stance on Afghanistan, or didn't take it seriously. Still, many sold him as the only progressive candidate in the race, in stark contrast with the hawkish Hillary Clinton. That was never true, and Obama proved it last year when he made Clinton his secretary of state and kept Robert Gates as defense secretary. The howls of betrayal by progressives I respect like Michael Moore, Arianna Huffington and Keith Olbermann are at least partly a measure of their own misunderstanding of Obama's candidacy. The American left needs to smarten up, and toughen up, if it wants to make deep, lasting change in this country. 
 
 I'm deeply disappointed, saddened even, but I don't feel betrayed. Obama has governed like the centrist he told us and showed us he is, from his early flip-flops on FISA to his Goldman Sachs-friendly bailout policies to compromising on the job-creation parts of his economic stimulus to his tepid backing of a healthcare reform public option. It's going to take hard work by activists on all of those fronts to push him to better solutions. 
 
 Still, I'd be remiss if I didn't stress, once again, that the president faced only bad choices in making this decision, thanks to the incompetence of the Bush-Cheney administration. Every day Dick Cheney becomes more despicable, most recently allowing his handmaidens John Harris and Jim Vandehei from Politico to transcribe his raspy, hateful utterances trashing the president on the eve of this crucial national security announcement. "Here's a guy, without much experience, who travels around the world apologizing," Cheney told his stenographers. He even accused Obama of giving "aid and comfort" to al-Qaida, which is, I believe, the definition of treason. Classy. The former vice-president is as deranged as the Birthers who used monkey imagery in a Washington Times ad to label Obama a "usurper." But he's Obama's best friend, because he reminds the left that as disappointing as this president is, on so many, many fronts, he's not Cheney. Small comfort tonight, but it's something. ||||| Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- President Barack Obama, speaking early Wednesday in Afghanistan at the tail end of a surprise visit there, discussed how the war will end and promised a steady drawdown of U.S. troops. 
 
 Obama committed to pulling 23,000 troops out of the country by the end of summer and sticking to the 2014 deadline to turn security fully over to the Afghan government. He said that NATO will set a goal this month for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations next year. 
 
 "We will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains. That will be the job of the Afghan people," the president said during a speech at Bagram Air Base. 
 
 Read extensive excerpts of the speech 
 
 His unannounced trip was Obama's third visit to Afghanistan since taking office. It coincided with the first anniversary of the U.S. raid that killed Osama bin Laden in neighboring Pakistan, and comes as Obama is fighting for re-election. 
 
 Hours after Obama left the country, the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force reported a loud explosion in the capital, Kabul. 
 
 Gen. Mohammad Ayoub Salangi, Kabul chief of police, told CNN it was a suicide car bomb. The blast killed five people outside a compound known as Green Village, according Sediq Seddiqi, a spokesman for Afghan Interior Ministry. An undetermined number of others also were injured. 
 
 The president promised not to keep troops in harm's way "a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security," but promised to "finish the job" and "end this war responsibly." 
 
 Obama spoke of a "negotiated peace," and said his administration has been in direct talks with the Taliban. "We've made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws," he said. 
 
 Finally, the president vowed: "This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end." 
 
 Earlier in his trip, Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed an agreement outlining cooperation between their countries once the U.S.-led international force withdraws in 2014. 
 
 Some U.S. forces will remain in a post-war Afghanistan as military advisers, but both U.S. and Afghan officials have yet to decide how many troops will continue supporting the Afghan military, and for how long. 
 
 See reactions to Obama's surprise trip 
 
 At a signing ceremony for the Strategic Partnership Agreement, Obama said that neither country asked for the war that began more than a decade ago, but now they would work in partnership for a peaceful future. 
 
 "There will be difficult days ahead, but as we move forward in our transition, I'm confident that Afghan forces will grow stronger; the Afghan people will take control of their future," Obama said. 
 
 Addressing a concern in Afghanistan that the United States will abandon the country once its troops leave, Obama said, "With this agreement, I am confident that the Afghan people will understand that the United States will stand by them." 
 
 He later added that the United States "did not come here to claim resources or to claim territory. We came here with a very clear mission to destroy al Qaeda," referring to the terrorist organization responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks. 
 
 Obama's address came nine years to the day after then-President George W. Bush delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq. 
 
 Karzai offered his thanks to the American people for helping Afghanistan, and the presidents shook hands after signing the document in the atrium of the King's Residence, part of the Presidential Palace in Kabul. 
 
 "This agreement will close the season of the past 10 years and is going to open an equal relationship season. With the signing of this agreement, we are starting a phase between two sovereign and independent countries that will be based on mutual respect, mutual commitments and mutual friendship," Karzai said. 
 
 Obama warned the Afghan people and, later, U.S. troops he met with, of difficult days ahead. In remarks to troops at Bagram, Obama sounded emotional as he said that soldiers could see friends get hurt or killed as the mission winds down. 
 
 "There's going to heartbreak and pain and difficulty ahead, but there's a light on the horizon because of the sacrifices you've made," he said. 
 
 The security risks in Afghanistan were evident from the secretive nature and timing of the trip. Obama landed in Afghanistan in the cover of darkness, and the signing ceremony occurred in the late evening. 
 
 Back in the United States, politicians reacted to the president's visit -- some with praise, others claiming it was politically motivated. 
 
 Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said, "I am pleased that President Obama has returned to Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve to hear from our president about what is at stake in this war. Success in Afghanistan is vital to our nation's security. It would be a tragedy for Afghanistan and a strategic setback for America if the Taliban returned to power and once again created a sanctuary for terrorists." 
 
 Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, was less supportive. 
 
 "Clearly, this trip is campaign-related. We've seen recently that President Obama has visited college campuses in an attempt to win back the support of that age group since he has lost it over the last three years. Similarly, this trip to Afghanistan is an attempt to shore up his national security credentials, because he has spent the past three years gutting our military," he said in a statement. 
 
 The Strategic Partnership Agreement provides a framework for the U.S.-Afghanistan partnership for the decade after the U.S. and allied troop withdrawal, according to senior administration officials who briefed reporters on the flight. 
 
 Specific levels of U.S. forces and funding are not set in the agreement and will be determined by the United States in consultation with allies, the officials said on condition of not being identified. 
 
 Noting the anniversary of the bin Laden mission, the officials called it a resonant day for the Afghan and American people. 
 
 More than 130,000 troops from 50 countries serve in Afghanistan, according to the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force. The United States is the biggest contributor, providing about 90,000 troops, followed by the United Kingdom (9,500), Germany (4,800) and France (3,600). 
 
 The war that began in 2001 is increasingly unpopular in the United States, with the latest CNN/ORC International poll in late March showing 25% of respondents supporting it and 72% opposing it. 
 
 More than 2,700 troops from the United States and its partners have died in the war, the majority of them American. 
 
 In 2011, the United States outlined its plan to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The move was followed by withdrawal announcements by most of the NATO nations. 
 
 Last week, Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Daftar Spanta and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker initialed a text that outlined the kind of relationship the two countries want in the decade following the NATO withdrawal. 
 
 The deal had been long expected after Washington and Kabul found compromises over the thorny issues of "night raids" by U.S. forces on Afghan homes and the transfer of U.S. detainees to Afghan custody. 
 
 It seeks to create an enduring partnership that prevents the Taliban from waiting until the U.S. withdrawal to try to regain power, the senior administration officials said. 
 
 Obama visited Afghanistan in March 2010 and returned in December of the same year. He also visited Afghanistan in 2008 as a presidential candidate. 
 
 CNN's Tom Cohen, Barbara Starr, Keating Holland, Nick Paton Walsh and journalist Masoud Popalzai contributed to this report.
– President Obama staked his presidency on the Afghanistan war last night, but pundits are widely split on how convincingly he made the case for escalation. This was no George W. Bush on an aircraft carrier, writes Matthew Cooper in the Atlantic. This was a community organizer turned war president," making a compelling, "almost Kissengerian" argument that just like with health care we need to spend now to save later, Cooper notes. "The worst major speech of his presidency" left Joan Walsh at Salon deeply pessimistic about the chances of success in Afghanistan. Obama failed to give any convincing reasons why we are escalating the fight in Afghanistan now, and didn't seem all that convinced himself, she writes. Obama's "strangely schizophrenic" emphasis on the possibly incompatible goals of victory and a speedy withdrawal is unlikely to go down well with either liberals or conservatives, and won't persuade the undecided, writes Ross Douthat at the New York Times. The president barely seemed to mention military strategy, he notes. Obama showed "a steely resolve" that had been lacking before, writes Richard Cohen at the Washingon Post. The president showed it is possible to urge a nation to war "using reason and logic, facts and figures—and not by waving the bloody shirt of patriotic fibs," Cohen notes.