President Obama announced his strategy for going forward in Afghanistan in a speech before the cadets at West Point last night. So far, most of the commentary I have read is negative. Most Conservatives don't like the fact that he has placed a time limit, which they believe (and I agree) simply gives Al Qaeda and the Taliban a target date for eventual victory (all they need do is hold out until 2011, and then we'll leave, and then they will exact their vengeance on all the dogs and lackeys who aided us). Most Liberals are unhappy with the escalation, as they believe the war was unjust in the first place, and is unwinnable besides, so we ought to cut our losses and get out.

I tend to agree with Ralph Peters that this speech was all about politics. All Presidents are politicians of course, and all have to look to the political consequences of their actions. Even great wartime leaders like Lincoln and FDR were aware of the political ramifications of their decisions. But these men (and Truman during the Korean War, and Wilson during WWI) kept their eyes on the prize. Lincoln's goal was to win, and thereby restore the Union. He was willing to sacrifice his reelection in 1864 to achieve that goal. FDR's goal was to win (though he was never in any political danger during WWII), Wilson's goals were even loftier, to remake the world, and he did himself tremendous political damage in attempting to achieve those goals, as did Truman.

Conversely, LBJ and Nixon were all about politics and the political game when making decisions about Vietnam and, as a consequence, we lost that war. So, it seems, is Barack Obama when making decisions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is unwilling to embrace the ideology of the Left and follow through on the natural logic of that ideology and worldview, which would result in the withdrawal of troops from both places in short order, because he is afraid of the political consequences. He is unwilling to embrace the view from the Right, which is that there should be no timetable, and whatever resources are necessary should be used to win in both places, because that would do even more political harm by angering his base voters even more than they are today. So, he chooses a middle path, which is perfectly acceptable when dealing with most political issues, but is disastrous when making military decisions.

Ironically, despite his best efforts, President Obama's half-measures are as certain to bring him political defeat at home as they are to bring us military defeat in Afghanistan.

Victor Davis Hanson is also critical of the President's speech.

A new poll by Gallup, taken before the speech, shows the American people do not approve of the President's handling of Afghanistan.

Thomas Friedman explains why he disagrees with the President.