Published for The Washington Post’s Post Partisan, September 1st, 2010:

Before offering an assessment of last night’s speech, it is worth recognizing the historic nature of the moment. A little over three years ago, it was possible, even likely, that America would suffer a major military defeat at the center of its interests in the Middle East – a defeat of greater practical and psychological impact than the American loss in Vietnam. Iraq was descending into civil war, perhaps into genocide. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was gaining control over whole regions of the country. Six years after Sept. 11, terrorists and insurgents were on the verge of a victory against the United States.

Given this context, President Obama’s announcement of the end of combat operations is a tremendous national accomplishment. The outcome in Iraq, though far from ideal or settled, has demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of the American military, the patience of our country in a difficult cause, and the importance of determined wartime leadership.

This achievement deserved a historical marker, at least a modest rhetorical monument. But Obama’s effort – employing tired metaphors, culminating in a call to improve America’s “manufacturing base” and “long-term competitiveness” – was forgettable.

Returning to the standards of judgment I set out last night before the speech, the results were mixed.

• First, it should have a Lincolnian purpose – to heal the domestic divisions caused by the Iraq War, instead of laying claim to political credit for the fulfillment of a campaign pledge.

Full post here