That is the crux of most major headlines this morning, detailing that by giving the speech last night and calling for increased troops totals, president Barack Obama has made the Afghanistan war part of his legacy. There is no evidence in recent history that such things are exactly good for a legacy. At the most basic level, the president as ordered 30,000 new troops be sent to Afghanistan, many rushed there in the next six months. He is also requesting the help of NATO, with something between 6-8,000 troops. He then set a timetable, 18 months, that seems somewhat based on the situation on the ground. His rational on the timetable, which is sure to anger Republicans - although House minority leader Mitch McConnell seemed to think it is flexible - is that Afghanistan must take its security into its own hands. At one point he pointedly said the U.S. does not want to occupy Afghanistan. It is there to protect its own security. I don't pretend to be an expert on any of this stuff, but I can talk about the politics: they are bad. There is nothing that is going to make this a political win for Obama, except may a quick win. Mr. Bush ruined that whole "mission accomplished" thing for everybody. The U.S. has to capture and/or kill all of their targets, and be out of there in 18 months. Otherwise, guess what kicks into high gear in a year and half? You guessed it, the 2010 elections. Some coverage on the speech/troop increase: Politico seems to have a less-than rosy outlook. New York Times. Thomas Freidman says: "People do not change when you tell them they should. They change we context tells them they must." The New York Post is an awful paper, but this column against the plan was so over the top... Vice President Joe Biden went on the offensive this morning. The Senate will have panel hearings today. And in case you didn't see it: