War Within: New Strategy Filled with Contradictions

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: Now all it has to do is work.

President Obama's address to the nation Tuesday night leaves him with significant contradictions to unpack — getting in deeper to get out sooner, a timeline that actually isn't one, threats without consequences, paying for it but not really, and finally, an Obama strategy that looks and sounds a whole lot like the Bush strategy.

The politics, ultimately, will follow events. The skepticism we're hearing now, from Democrats and Republicans, won't matter if the new strategy does what it's supposed to.

But the president outlined a strategy that doesn't address the what-ifs. What if Afghanistan's government doesn't do what's expected of it? What if June 2011 (the shiny date offered to make this plan look like no other one before it) proves dangerous as a date to start withdrawal? What if we don't get where the president is promising to take us?

That's where we're back to the politics. President Obama is right to say the nation was united when this war began. But the nation is united no longer.

And, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Defense Secretary Bob Gates fan out to both sides of the Hill to make the case Wednesday, the White House is going to need to build some awkward coalitions. (At least bipartisanship won't be a challenge this time.)

The biggest contradiction had a point: "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," The New York Times' Peter Baker and Adam Nagourney report. "Yet his answer to perhaps the most vexing decision to confront him yet in his presidency is one that may frustrate both sides more than it satisfies them, as suggested by the initial reaction."

 "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," Dan Balz writes for The Washington Post. "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."

ABC's Jake Tapper, on "Good Morning America" Wednesday: "It was, in many ways, a classic Obama speech: An attempt to forge consensus and find a middle ground where perhaps one doesn't exist."

Think he gets it? "I am painfully clear that this is politically unpopular, precisely because the American people are rightly focused on how do we rebuild America," Obama told a group of journalists over lunch, per the Los Angeles Times' Doyle MacManus.

If it doesn't work? "I think there is going to be enormous interest on the part of the American people and on the part of Congress in keeping me to my word that this is not a constant escalation," the president said at the lunch, per The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder.

"I'm assuming it's going to work," Vice President Joe Biden told Diane Sawyer on "GMA." "The only question is the gradual — how steep the slope will be, to begin to withdrawal."

Biden continued: "The president's got the priorities right. The number of troops is much less important than that narrow, clear strategy."

From the other side: "Dates should be determined by success on the ground — not by the calendar," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told ABC's Robin Roberts. "Both our enemies and our friends alike hear the message that we're going to be leaving on a certain date."

No easy exit strategies surrounding the politics: "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," The Wall Street Journal's Peter Spiegel, Jonathan Weisman, and Yochi J. Dreazen report. "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."

Not much time for it to actually work: "The president laid out a very tight schedule for deployment and withdrawal. American troops will begin to arrive in Afghanistan early next year — 'the fastest pace possible,' the president said — and the expectation is that they could begin to come home starting in July 2011," ABC's Karen Travers, Jake Tapper, and Huma Khan write.

It could "well prove to be the most consequential decision of Mr. Obama's presidency," Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Helene Cooper write for The New York Times. "Mr. Obama is calculating, administration officials said, that the explicit promise of a drawdown will impress upon the Afghan government that his commitment is not open-ended." The gamble: "The president has now bet his presidency on two men" — Gen. Stanley McChrystal, and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, ABC's George Stephanopoulos said on "GMA."

This cuts — and bites — in a few different directions: "It feels like 2007 all over again. Different war, different president, but 'surge' is back in vogue," the AP's Ron Fournier writes. "From process to goals to specifics, Obama's new war plan is eerily similar to Bush's."

Slate's John Dickerson — headlined, "The Fog of War": "After announcing the latest surge of 30,000 new soldiers in a speech at West Point, it is clear that he is a president actively prosecuting a war, not merely tending to one that was left to him. The rest, though, is a bit blurry."

David Corn, at Politics Daily: "It's a bit of a muddle. Moreover, the transfer that is at the core of Obama's policy depends on the government of President Hamid Karzai. Obama is betting a lot on an entity that has so far proved to be inept and corrupt."

Politico's Ben Smith: "Obama seemed to take for granted that the unpopular, confusing war will never again be a cherished national cause. He argued for a stringent, grudging, and time-limited military commitment to Afghanistan, dropping all discussion of human rights and civilian nation-building."

The tone: "Obama's delivery was unusually subdued but also reflected far more passion than usual. To underscore the gravity of the moment, Obama dispensed with the playing of 'Hail to the Chief' when introduced," the New York Daily News' James Gordon Meek and Richard Sisk report.

The skeptics cross the spectrum: "To now make Afghanistan part of the 'war on terrorism' — i.e., another nation-building project — is not crazy," Tom Friedman writes in his New York Times column. "It is just too expensive, when balanced against our needs for nation-building in America, so that we will have the strength to play our broader global role. Hence, my desire to keep our presence in Afghanistan limited."

David Sirota, writing at OpenLeft.com: "If Obama's Afghan War strategy about escalating a war to end a war was a self-help strategy for, say, alcoholics, wouldn't it prescribe drinking more whiskey to stop drinking – and wouldn't we all laugh at that? … I'm confused: Is this hope or change?"

"This is wrong," reads the e-mail blast from MoveOn.org.

On the Hill: "Congressional reaction to the 30,000-troop surge in Afghanistan was as tepid as President Obama's West Point speech," Time's Jay Newton-Small reports.

(Have statements from members of Congress ever been so interesting — or so relevant?)

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. (and this is the entirety of his statement): "President Obama asked for time to make his decision on a new policy in Afghanistan. I am going to take some time to think through the proposal he presented tonight."

(Lynn Sweet, of the Chicago Sun-Times: "I've never really known Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the No. 2 man in the Senate, to be at a loss for words.")

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., again to the left of his primary opponent: "I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda."

Can he keep it together? "President Barack Obama's decision to set a target date for starting U.S. troop withdrawals from Afghanistan divided lawmakers just as he is seeking to consolidate support for his war plan," Bloomberg's Viola Gienger and James Rowley report.

"Republicans who oppose Obama on almost everything else praised his decision, sometimes grudgingly, to deploy 30,000 additional U.S. troops. Democrats who are usually his most reliable allies expressed criticism, sometimes heatedly, over his failure to detail when the U.S. mission would end," USA Today's Susan Page and Kathy Kiely report. "That leaves Obama in a perilous political situation, facing a potential mutiny on this issue among liberal interest groups such as MoveOn that helped elect him and Democratic legislators on whom he is counting to pass a health care bill in the next few weeks."

Susan Milligan and Lisa Wangsness, in The Boston Globe: "Democrats don't want to spurn their president in a time of need, but they have serious concerns about escalating a war in a nation with rampant corruption and led by a president many believe stole the August election. And a vote to expand the war could damage incumbents in next year's elections." With Afghanistan done — next up is jobs. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., outlines some GOP job-creating proposals at 2 pm ET Wednesday at The Heritage Foundation in Washington — a day before the White House jobs summit.

Cantor tells ABC: "We in this country used to be so hopeful. And what I've heard is a lack of that kind of confidence going forward."

Going out from House leadership Wednesday: "WRONG FROM THE START: TOP 10 OUTRAGEOUS CLAIMS ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS' TRILLION-DOLLAR 'STIMULUS' "

On health care, the fun part — the votes — begin Wednesday in the Senate.

Optimism: "Senators prepared to cast their first votes Wednesday on health-care reform, but even as partisan divisions hardened and contentious amendments stacked up, Democrats increasingly expressed optimism that they would succeed in passing a bill before Christmas," Shailagh Murray and Lori Montgomery report in The Washington Post.

Know your procedure: "Senate Republicans may not have the physical numbers to filibuster the Democrats' health care reform bill, but they have wasted little time in using the Senate's rules to their utmost advantage in their quest to trip up consideration of the measure," Roll Call's Emily Pierce reports.

Those e-mails involving the White House gate-crashers show they were, indeed, crashers: "E-mails between the so-called state dinner crashers and a Pentagon official indicate the official was trying to get them in to the White House event, but did not succeed, according to the email chain obtained by ABC News," ABC's Pierre Thomas, Devin Dwyer, and Yunji de Nies report. "In the emails, Pentagon official Michele S. Jones told Tareq and Michaele Salahi that she was trying to get them access to the White House grounds, but never said she had received approval, contradicting the couple's claim today that they had emails proving they had been invited to the Nov. 24 gala."

Make that two big House Democratic retirements, and counting. "Rep. John Tanner (D-TN), a leading Blue Dog Dem, will retire at the end of his current term, Dem sources tell Hotline OnCall," per Reid Wilson and Tim Sahd. "Tanner will be the second Dem to announce his retirement in recent days, following Rep. Dennis Moore's (D-KS) decision late last week to step down. Both men represent districts that voted heavily for Pres. Bush twice." 

Heard of GOOOH yet? That's "Get Out of Our House." They just want to replace all 435 members of the House of Representatives. "It's pronounced GO (GEAUX in Louisiana) and it is a burgeoning political movement that started here in Texas," Tom Abrahams reports for Houston's ABC-13.

The Kicker:

"There is a point that I wanted to make, and as is so often the case, that point is better made by somebody else. So I yield to the Chinese general Sun Tzu…" — Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., quoting "Art of War" on the House floor.

For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note's blog . . . all day every day:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/