Though I have no illusions about the President’s plan in Afghanistan – and indeed, the President may not either, but that’s for another day – I can accept that it may be the least bad option, as Lawrence Wilkerson argued on MSNBC last night.

Glenn Greenwald gives the speech a somewhat favorable and extremely apt review this morning, pointing out that all pretense about nation-building, particularly about the women of Afghanistan, has been abandoned once and for all.  Curiously, Greenwald begins by contrasting his view favorably with the arguments of Rachel Maddow that Obama is embracing the Bush Doctrine.

Delving further, it is not surprising that more principled liberals are, however reservedly, taking a more circumspect view of Obama’s plan than the hacks.  Most TAC readers are no doubt cheering the announcement by Russ Feingold, with the support of House progressives, that he will move to block funding for the escalation.  But this strikes me as bizarre and extremely puzzled as to their motives, especially when learning that the execrable Jane Harman is joining in, bringing into view Feingold’s idiosyncratic Iran hawkishness.

And in the end, rightly or wrongly, there will always be the Commentary blog for comfort that the neocons aren’t satisfied and won’t let up.

Still, all grievances of moral and principle aside, Obama gave exactly the speech he needed to give politically, to secure his decent interval and at the same time directly challenge the neocon/media narrative being spun for him.  If Afghanistan is Vietnam, Obama is Nixon, not Johnson, and indeed, Obama gave a powerful echo of the Silent Majority speech.