• Jourdan Dunn, 19, has given birth to a baby boy with her boyfriend of five years. She memorably walked the runway for Jean-Paul Gaultier at seven months. [Vogue UK]
• Gisele and Tom Brady might name their newborn son Gabriel. [P6]

• Last night at the British Fashion Awards, Karen Elson strolled on stage to present a prize — and promptly stepped right into an orchestra pit. She fell four feet. (Kind of like that one time she fell on the runway at Zac Posen, but worse.) She picked herself and got back on stage to say, "I am the clumsiest person on this earth. I cannot believe I just did that. That is the worst fall I have ever had. I might have broken a rib, but I'm fine." [Telegraph]
• For a play-by-play of the night, Elle's got you covered. [UK Elle]
• Dita von Teese: "I also used clothes as a way to counteract my extreme shyness when I was younger. I wore a lot of extravagant vintage hats, which can make people somewhat intimidated. I think people will only approach if they have something very, very interesting to say to the girl in the outrageous hat!" [People]
• Terrell Owens has signed with Wilhelmina Models to pursue endorsement contracts. [AP]
• Martin Margiela, whose departure from Maison Martin Margiela was finally confirmed yesterday, was spotted shopping for a home in Los Angeles. [Fashionologie]
• Vogue Brazil — long the poor relation in the Vogue family, with, if you can believe it, an even greater propensity for jumping model/white background editorials than the American pendant — convinced Alber Elbaz to guest-art direct a stunning cover, and a fashion story inside. The results are lovely. [MadeinBrazil]
• Burberry will again show its women's collection at London Fashion Week in February. Until the LFW 25th anniversary last September, the brand's regular venue of choice had been Milan. [WWD]
• Today in off-beat holiday gifts: The Marc Jacobs skate deck. It's Canadian maple, people! [FWD]
• Betsey Johnson, for her part, would be satisfied with "a hot new lover." [WWD]
• Perhaps better than Barneys' "Saturday Night Live" seasonal windows is this offering from Moschino. The holidays are a time we all wish we could be in therapy, apparently. [FabSugar]
• Jason Wu is moving his West 37th studio to a bigger space. "When I first moved in there I painted the walls myself, it was very personal, I was like 'this place is so big, I'm never going to outgrow it'. Then we outgrew it," says Wu. Since the recognition that designing Michelle Obama's inauguration ball gown brought, he has also increased his output to four collections a year — spring/summer, pre-fall, fall/winter, and resort. "We need four seasons a year to keep the store stocked," explains Wu. [Yahoo!]
• Douglas Hannant, who has not benefitted from Mrs. Obama's sartorial munificence, explained his earlier reported comment ("Michelle Obama is not the next Jackie O") thusly: "I did say 'Michelle Obama is not another Jackie Kennedy and I do not consider to be a style icon.' But in addition, I also said 'she has so much more to her and has mass appeal. I admire her as a role model and think she will achieve great things in her position as First Lady.' And by the way, I voted for Obama." [The Cut]
• In other political fashion news, Hillary Clinton presented Blake Mycoskie of Tom's Shoes with this year's Award for Corporate Excellence. For every pair of Tom's Shoes purchased, two more pairs are donated to needy children around the world. As Mycoskie said at a gala for an entirely different ACE award earlier this year, "Shoes, for 40 percent of the world, are not an accessory. They're a necessity." [Blackbook]
• Naturally, as gigantic arena rock-star fashion shows become the norm, since fashion shows are more about generating publicity than they are about selling to store buyers and editors, more brands are taking the next logical step: making their fashion shows public, on the Internet. [Time]
• Adidas is entering the performance outerwear market. Which is a fancy way of saying: They're gonna make some jackets. [BW]
• Despite the recession, Mulberry's sales rose 16% in the six months to September 30. Naturally the Daily Mail uses this as an opportunity to run a bunch of pictures of celebrities carrying Mulberry bags, and ponder the wastefulness of women. [Daily Mail]

The AP summarizes:

A wartime president honored for peace, Obama became the first sitting U.S. president in 90 years and the third ever to win the prize - some say prematurely. In this damp, chilly Nordic capital to pick it up, he and his wife, Michelle, whirled through a day filled with Nobel pomp and ceremony.

And yet Obama was staying here only about 24 hours and skipping the traditional second day of festivities. This miffed some in Norway but reflects a White House that sees little value in extra pictures of the president, his poll numbers dropping at home, taking an overseas victory lap while thousands of U.S. troops prepare to go off to war and millions of Americans remain jobless.

Just nine days after ordering 30,000 more U.S. troops into battle in Afghanistan, Obama delivered a Nobel acceptance speech that he saw as a treatise on war's use and prevention. He crafted much of the address himself and the scholarly remarks - at about 4,000 words - were nearly twice as long as his inaugural address.

The speech itself is interesting and well written. However, it leaves me feeling both uneasy and excited, for reasons I can't fully articulate. Perhaps it is because the speech reads as a call for just war, for the sake of peace - yet is filled with talking points we've heard before during the beginning of the War on Terror. That aside, it's a well-crafted speech, and it makes sense for the President to address the renewed push for war while receiving an award designed for those who promote piece. He addresses this deftly, as the speech opens:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations – that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize – Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela – my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women – some known, some obscure to all but those they help – to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

Obama then provides a realistic view of policy, force, and human nature:

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations – acting individually or in concert – will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago – "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there is nothing weak –nothing passive – nothing naïve – in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

He then explains the current issues with warfare:

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another – that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths – that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

He also explains his thinking on freedom, peace, and human rights.

In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists – a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests – nor the world's –are served by the denial of human aspirations.

It was a good speech. But I wonder how much of it the United States and its citizens will be able to live up to.

Obama defends US wars as he accepts peace prize [Associated Press]

Obama's Nobel Acceptance Speech [The Plum Line]

[Allentown, Pennsylvania; December 4. Image via Getty]

US President Barack Obama greets a baby as he arrives to deliver remarks on the economy at Lehigh Carbon Community College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, on December 4, 2009 as he kicks off his 'White House to Main Street Tour' that will take him to cities and towns across the country over the next couple months. AFP PHOTO/Nicholas KAMM (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)

The buck has - almost - stopped. Or at least scapegoated: A secret service officer judged responsible for the security breach that allowed national laughingstocks Tareq and Michaele Salahi to crash a state dinner have been put on leave. End of it? Everyone wishes. Says the Wall Street Journal,

"We are all fortunate that this diplomatic celebration did not become a night of horror," said Rep. Bennie Thompson (D., Miss.), chairman of the panel. Committee Republicans stepped up criticism of the Obama administration's social secretary, Desiree Rogers, saying she should be subpoenaed to answer questions about her staff's role in the lapse. Committee Democrats rebuffed calls to compel Ms. Rogers to testify. The White House has said Ms. Rogers won't appear before the committee.

And cheerleaders for the Washington Redskins are also all steamed up - since, allegedly, Mrs. Salahi participated in a Sept. 20 halftime show with a bunch of former Redskins cheerleaders, with cameras in tow, claiming to be a former member of the squad. (That's her with them) But, as the Washington Post reports, the squad became suspicious when "Salahi couldn't perform some of the basic cheerleader routines, including the standard choreography for the team's fight song, "Hail to the Redskins." And, sure enough, she proved to be an impostor.

The Washington Redskins Cheerleaders Alumni Association lists Salahi on its membership roster and indicates that she was a cheerleader during 1991 season under her nickname and maiden name, Missy Holt. However, when asked by the group for proof of her participation, Salahi was unable to supply any...The group's president, Terri Lamb, said Wednesday, "We have no record that she ever was a Redskins cheerleader. She was listed on our 1991 roster at Ms. Salahi's request and based on her misrepresentation to us."

The collective shenanigans have resulted in a formal investigation by Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services into the Salahis' vague business, America's Polo Cup, which raises funds fur charitable works. The Salahis claim that "National Polo League" officially sanctions their org; the shallowest of digging raised doubts about the National Polo League's actual existence. In other news, the Salahis still owe money to a landscaper, who took them to court: in lieu of cash, reports the WaPo, Tareq left a Patek Philippe watch that, according to a witness, "makes a Rolex look like a Swatch."

By now it should be pretty obvious that the couples' self-promotion may verge on pathology and blur the "con" line. Clearly, they're pros. Which makes the continued bile being directed at Desiree Rogers that much more confusing. While it's true that her failure to answer questions of the congressional probe looks high-handed (all the more so when one of her deputies is taking the fall) Peter King's accusations of "stonewalling" are somewhat incendiary and more than a little politically-charged.

Officers Put On Leave Over Crashing of Party [Wall Street Journal]
Cheerleaders Get Fired Up About Salahi [Washington Post]
W.H. Accused Of 'Stonewalling' [PoliticoIn Court, Salahis Agree To Settle Debt With Watch [Washington Post]

[Washington, D.C., December 3. Image via Getty]

WASHINGTON - DECEMBER 03: U.S. first lady Michelle Obama greets children before she reads the story 'The Night Before Christmas' to them during the annual National Christmas Tree lighting ceremony at the Ellipse December 3, 2009 in Washington, DC. Lighting the National Christmas Tree is a yearly tradition for the President of the United State during the holiday season. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Yesterday afternoon, Jake Tapper of ABC News put White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the spot about what it means to discuss women's rights as well as human rights:

TAPPER: And if I may, just one more. In his March — in his March speech President Obama mentioned that if the Taliban returns to controlling Afghanistan it would be bad for human rights. And he specifically singled out women and girls. He did not mention human rights in Afghanistan. He talked about human rights more broadly, but last night he didn't mentioned human rights in Afghanistan and he definitely didn't mention specifically women and girls.

GIBBS: Well, I believe in — I believe in the context of the three pillars that he saw, mentioning the basic recognition of human rights in Afghanistan is obviously important to what is happening there.

TAPPER: But he didn't mention women and girls, and is that...

GIBBS: Again, I think the umbrella of basic human rights was — was the same thing.

TAPPER: So even though he mentioned it in March and he didn't mention it last night, we're not supposed to read anything into that at all?

GIBBS: I wouldn't. I mean, I have not looked exactly at the word phrasing of each speech, but the umbrella of basic — recognizing the basic human rights of everybody in Afghanistan would include that, yes.

Gibbs' argument that women's rights are human rights is a good one, and one often used by feminists. However, its been shown before that if the rights of women are not specifically addressed,they can easily fall to the wayside. As Gayle Tzemach Lemmon explains in the Daily Beast, while war is hell for all involved, everyone in Afghanistan is not suffering equally:

A recent U.N. report said the country suffers from "a deeply entrenched culture of impunity" in which perpetrators of violence seldom face punishment and victims "risk further violence in the course of seeking justice."

But some women's rights groups, including Women for Afghan Women, the organization that oversees the shelter where Naseema lives, greeted President Obama's speech Tuesday night-and his vow to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan-with a modicum of hope, and a call for a long-term American commitment to the country.

"Without security, the Taliban will engulf the country and return women to the hell of rape, domestic captivity, denial of education and health care-to the erasure of their very humanity," the group's leaders said in a statement. [...]

Wenny Kusuma, who heads the United Nations Development Fund for Women in Afghanistan, calls violence against women the most urgent and immediate issue facing the nation's females-and one that has yet to be taken seriously by the Afghan government or its international backers. "Until politicians and the international community stop offering lip service to the rights of women and begin backing their words with some seriousness, [the violence] will continue to get worse," Kusuma says.

Over at Politico, Ben Smith talks to Ellie Smeal of the Feminist Majority Foundation, who could not believe such a critical security issue was left out:

"It is so naïve just to think [the Taliban] are just going to stay [in Afghanistan]," she said. "They have international backing, they have international funding, and they intend to take on all modern values and ways of life," she said. "They're establishing a totalitarian dictatorship that they want to spread."

Smeal also argued that Obama's policy would be an easier sell if he focused on Taliban human rights abuses.

"People don't like what they did to women," she said of the Taliban. "If the whole picture was revealed the American public would be more supportive."

Admirers of the White House approach, however, argue that America's Afghan allies also have horrendous human rights records, and that President Obama doesn't actually want to drum up support for engagement in a country he intends to leave.

Glenn Greenwald also thinks that Obama made the right choice in not emphasizing the rights of women:

While Obama's speech last night largely comported to what his aides spent days anonymously previewing, there was one (pleasantly) unexpected aspect: he commendably dispensed with the propagandistic pretext that we are fighting in Afghanistan in order to deliver freedom and democracy to that country and to improve the plight of Afghan women. Many Democrats (the self-proclaimed "liberal hawks") love to support American wars on the self-righteous ground that we're going to drop enough Freedom Bombs to liberate millions and invade other countries in order to re-make other peoples' cultures for their own good. In order to maximize support for his escalation, Obama — like Bush so often did — could easily have relied on that appeal to our national narcissism and exploited justifiable disgust for the Taliban in order to manipulate "liberal hawks" into supporting this war on human rights grounds. During the build-up to the speech, it was predicted by several influential Obama advisers that he would do exactly that. Indeed, when announcing his prior Afghanistan escalation in March, Obama played up the humanitarian rationale for this war.

But there was almost none of that in last night's speech. As Ben Smith correctly notes, Obama did not even mention — let alone hype — the issue of women's rights in Afghanistan. There were no grandiose claims that the justness of the war derives from our desire to defeat evil, tyrannical extremists and replace them with more humane and democratic leaders. To the contrary, he was commendably blunt that our true goal is not to improve the lives of Afghan citizens but rather: "Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda." There were no promises to guarantee freedom and human rights to the Afghan people. To the contrary, he explicitly rejected a mission of broad nation-building "because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost and what we need to achieve to secure our interests"; he said he "refuse[d] to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests"; and even vowed to incorporate the convertible factions of the Taliban into the government.

Not only did he refrain from those manipulative appeals, he made explicitly clear that we are in Afghanistan to serve our own interests (as he perceives them), not to build a better nation for Afghans. Nation-building, he said, goes "beyond ... what we need to achieve to secure our interests" and "go beyond our responsibility." We're there to serve our interests and do nothing else. That should throw cold water on all on the preening fantasies of all but the blindest and most naive "liberal war supporters" that we're there to help the Afghan people.

Matt Yglesias cautiously agrees with the sentiments expressed by Greenwald but points out that the situation isn't clear cut, and while the Administration may have impure motives, it would be best to listen to women on the ground :

Well, look, it's hard to see how supporting a government with Karzai's record could support a substantial gain for women's rights until you consider that the most plausible alternative is . . . the Taliban. It's like how Ben Nelson is more progressive than Mike Johanns. "Better than the Taliban" is a low bar to cross and, consequently, the coalition we're backing in Afghanistan crosses it*. If you read what groups like the Feminist Majority Foundation or the Funders Network for Afghan Women or Human Rights Watch are saying, none of them are cheerleading for Obama's policies, but none of them are calling for the withdrawal of international military forces either. Instead, they're generally calling for a more ambitious approach.

Can Obama balance our national security initiatives with the realities of fighting an unpopular war? Perhaps. But there will be no easy answers.

Today's Qs for O's WH – 12/2/2009 [ABC News]
What the Surge Means for Women [The Daily Beast]
Feminists 'disappointed' by Afghanistan speech [Politico]
The commendably missing element from Obama's speech [Salon]
The Surge and Afghan Women [Think Progress]

I think we've got ourselves a new holiday tradition, kids. And a round of applause, please, to Gawker video intern Rose Annis, who, at our request, took the much-beloved Christmas special - which was preempted so that ABC could air the President's West Point address - and made herself an awesome mashup. Not just anyone can get an assignment like "splice together Peanuts and the deployment of thirty thousand troops" and create a Christmas miracle.

Earlier: A Charlie Brown Christmas Will Not Air Tonight

Obama outlined the history of the conflict, and reminded Americans why we were involved in the first place. He then outlined his main policy items:

Our overarching goal remains the same: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future.

To meet that goal, we will pursue the following objectives within Afghanistan. We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven. We must reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government. And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan's security forces and government so that they can take lead responsibility for Afghanistan's future.

We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months. [...]

Second, we will work with our partners, the United Nations, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy, so that the government can take advantage of improved security. [...]

Third, we will act with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.

He also directly addressed concerns and criticisms of our efforts thus far:

First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now — and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance — would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort — one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.

After this point in the speech, it flips over to a rehash of all the things we heard during the Bush-Cheney years. Watching reactions to the speech on Twitter, I think my friend Nisha Chittal, blogging for Care2, came closest to summarizing the general feel of disappointment:

Obama is a master of words and rhetoric, but rhetoric cannot obscure the ugly truth here: we cannot afford the cost of this war, both in money and in human lives. And despite delivering a powerful speech, as Obama so often does, there are too many questions that still remain unanswered:

Will we really phase out troops by 2011? Will Afghani security forces really be secure enough by then? Or will this withdrawal timeline turn into another empty promise?

Where will we get the projected $30 billion needed for this troop surge when we are already in an economic crisis with no end in sight?

What will happen to Afghani women and girls? Their plight is terrible, but was barely even mentioned in tonight's speech. Are we going to continue to turn the other cheek to the human rights crisis faced by Afghani women on a daily basis?

Tonight, the President faced what will go down as one of the deciding moments of his administration. There is no longer any question: this has become Obama's war. He had the misfortune of inheriting two wars when he came into office. But instead of ending them, he has chosen to extend them. He rehashed the same explanations thrown at us by prior administrations over the past eight years.

Ben Smith, over at Politico, also noticed the lack of discussion about Afghan women and children:

"For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people - especially women and girls," Obama said in March.

Tonight's speech includes a passing, abstract reference to "human rights" — but not a single reference to Afghanistan's women and girls.

That, presumably, falls into the category of "nation building."

Also missing from the much of the post-speech analysis were the voices of people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and those working on the ground. Al Jazeera reports:

The goal, Obama said in a televised address on Tuesday, is to esculate the battle against Taliban fighters, secure key population centres and train Afghan security forces and so clear the way for a US exit in 18 months time.

But Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former prime minister of Afghanistan, expressed disappointment with Obama's speech and his strategy.

"Sending more troops is not the solution to the Afghan crisis," he said.

"I was expecting Obama to announce the withdrawal of 30,000 troops within two months but unfortunately, he did the opposite which will increase killings of both Americans and Afghans." [...]

Al Jazeera's James Bays, reporting from the Afghan capital, Kabul, said: "This wasn't a counter-insurgency speech; it was a counter-terrorism speech, a very different mission from the one General Stanley McCrystal has been preparing himself for.

"He only mentions the Taliban twice in the whole speech. He started talking about 9/11, he ended with talking about 9/11 and all the references in between were to al-Qaeda."

Bays added: "I think there will be some in the military here in the command centre of Kabul who will be having to rethink things rather urgently."

However, after Tuesday's speech, McChrystal said that Obama's decision "has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task".

In a statement released after the speech, General Stanely McChrystal also said:

In the meantime, our Afghan partners need the support of Coalition forces while we grow and develop the capacity of the Afghan army and police. That will be the main focus of our campaign in the months ahead.

"The 42 other nations of the Coalition will benefit from a strengthened U.S. commitment, as success in Afghanistan must be an international, integrated civil-military effort – from our security and training capacity to the governance and economic development assistance that sustains long-term stability. The concerted commitment of the international community will prevail in bringing real change to Afghanistan - a secure and stable environment that allows for effective governance, improved economic opportunity and the freedom of every Afghan to choose how they live.

But will this kind of effort work with the current resources available to the United States? The Administration has created a timeline in which to hand control over to Afghan patrols and troops, but this investigation by Al Jazeera shows that we may be overestimating key aspects of the strategy - including the actual number of troops on the ground:

After the speech aired, I asked some national security people to give their take on what this means for the United States and its foreign policy. Patricia DeGennaro, expert on U.S. Foreign Policy, National Security, and former consultant to the Office of the President in Afghanistan, writes:

So overall, Obama gave a moving speech. He reminded the country about the reason for going to Afghanistan in the first place or "why we are fighting" – the September 11 attacks. He spoke directly to the people who will be shouldering the burden while address the Afghan people themselves informing them that there is no intent to occupy.

In my mind however there are major shortcomings in the speech. First and foremost, he still failed to identify a clear objective for US forces. "Disrupt, destroy and dismantle Al Qaeda" is not a a mission that solely rests on Afghanistan. It is a far reaching hope. One that will entail a worldwide initiative by intelligence and Interpol agencies, not a military. The international forces need a "job" in order to finish one and unfortunately none of us really knows what that is, which makes it very hard when you are trying to plan.

The President outlined the same objectives. First, a military strategy to combat Al Qaeda and the Taliban who are growing ever closer while training and arming an Afghan national army, police force, and a few random militias. The militia part we tried and are still combating. Many of the militia members trained are now leaders of the insurgency and Taliban. It seems Obama missed the most recent Mullah Omar (head of the Taliban) memo that stated, "Afghans will shoot the invaders before their own brothers." Perhaps it is not a good idea to give them M-16s.

Second, Obama promised a civilian surge. One that will assist in security, development and agricultural production. It is not clear however, where these people will come from since the US has all but succeeded in destroying its international civilian capacity. Of the civilians promised to the Embassy, the Administration has sent about one-third of the promised civil officers – they are short 300 people to date.

Third, what does it mean that we are acting with Pakistan? The Kerry-Lugar act is providing Pakistan with $1.5 billion a year for five years in non-military development aid. Will the Administration be providing more military funding or armaments as well? That seemed to be hinted in this statement. Although unclear, it is worrisome.

Finally, setting a timetable is dangerous. This is not Iraq. Allies would like to leave sooner and this gives them no incentive to stay, but it gives adversaries all they incentive they need to stand pat. The reality Is Obama made a strong speech for why there is a war, the shortcoming was in the direction and management of the effort. They have a saying in Afghanistan, it looks like the same donkey with a different saddle. This saddle is a bit more compromising, but the devil is still missing the lifesaving details threatening any hopes for something I've never heard of – a speedy war.

I would say that all the above things [I wrote] are understood. However, the larger picture is that the US has not defined a more applicable post cold-war strategy. This country is still in the mindset that all that matters are our ‘vital' interests and how we perceive things to be without considering or learning about who we are dealing with the the consequences they will face by our one-sided interventions. I heard nothing about how the Afghans would suffer, be protected or partnered with during the next 18 months. I think Obama [in his speech] was struggling with the way that US policy is always formulated and they way he would like to change the formulation of US foreign policy. Washington is like a trillion pound barge, it takes all the energy you have to move it a centimeter.

Malou Innocent, of the Cato Institute, had this to say:

Last night, President Barack Obama declared "our security is at stake" in Afghanistan. As I mention here, President George W. Bush was also adept at keeping the American public in an elevated state of panic. That tactic may be useful for advancing controversial policies, especially in Afghanistan, but it also forces us to overlook how our policies intensify the region's powerful jihadist insurgency and entangles us deeper into a costly and protracted guerrilla war.

As the president's national security adviser, General James Jones, noted in October, "the al Qaeda presence [in Afghanistan] is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies." We don't need 130,000 soldiers to chase down 100 al Qaeda fighters. But yet another disturbing aspect of the current debate over Afghanistan is an inadequate examination of the war's core assumption: the safe haven myth. As Paul Pillar, the National Intelligence Office for the Middle East between 2000 and 2005 notes, the preparations most important to the September 11, 2001 attacks "took place not in training camps in Afghanistan but, rather, in apartments in Germany, hotel rooms in Spain and flight schools in the United States."

Our security is not at stake in Afghanistan. Not only is remaining in that country neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for keeping America safe, but prolonging our occupation is likely to tarnish America's reputation, undermine its security, and erode its economic well-being more than would a cost-effective policy limited to targeting al Qaeda.

In the coming days, Americans will know more about how the new strategy will be implemented. Today, Secretary of State Clinton, Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Cheifs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen are appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee. C-Span notes that this will be followed later by a "House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing regarding Pres. Obama's new Afghanistan war strategy." Stay tuned.

Obama's Address on the War in Afghanistan [New York Times]
Afghanistan: We Cannot Afford More War [Care2]
Missing from the speech: Afghan women [Politico]
Afghans react to Obama troop plan [Al Jazeera]
Statement: McChrystal on Afghan Policy [Time]
Patricia DeGennaro [SheSource]
How a U.S. Aid Package to Pakistan Could Threaten Zardari [Time]
Malou Innocent [SheSource]

Earlier: No End In Sight: Obama Gears Up On Afghanistan
Why Is 35% Of Development Aid Being Routed Back To The U.S.?
On Women, War & The Elections In Afghanistan

[West Point, New York; December 1. Image via Getty]

WEST POINT, NY - DECEMBER 01: Cadets bow their heads in prayer before a speech by U.S. President Barack Obama in Eisenhower Hall at the United States Military Academy at West Point December 1, 2009 in West Point, New York. President Obama is set to deliver a crucial speech at the renowned military academy today, during which he will outline his plan to send tens of thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan over the next six months, before transitioning forces out of the country beginning in 2012. (Photo by Chris Hondros/Getty Images)

According to reports, Obama will be adding somewhere around 30,000 more troops and asking for more time to make sure the country is stable before looking at a time table for withdrawal.

Obama will emphasize that Afghan security forces need more time, more schooling and more U.S. combat backup to be up to the job on their own, and he will make tougher demands on the governments of Pakistan as well as Afghanistan.

In the capital of Kabul, some Afghans said they were worried that the troop increase was too much like an occupation - a scenario particularly worrisome to Afghans who still remember living through an oppressive Soviet regime.

The additional troops are there to assist with the stabilization of the country while the Administration steps up its efforts to repair infrastructure. Nation-building is slow going, often producing results that are hard to measure. The Washington Post spoke with experts on nation building, who explain:

Diplomats and officials involved in past nation-building efforts generally agree that the process works best when warring factions are ready to make peace. Elections, while important to lend legitimacy to a new government, should not be rushed — creating lasting institutions is more important. The international community must have realistic, if modest, goals. Regional experts need to be consulted, and neighboring countries should be brought on board.

And nation-building should be done primarily by the people of the country involved, with the outside world there to assist, diplomats said.

Above all, there must be resources.

"More manpower and more money produces better, faster results," said former U.S. diplomat James F. Dobbins, now with the Rand Corp., who has had firsthand experience in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. "There is a correlation between the commitment and the achievement."

He added: "Lesson one was decisive force. Employ a force decisive enough and impressive enough to deter any violent resistance."

Most of the experts admit that in order to have a successful strategy, most of the nations' factions must be committed to moving forward:

Many of the officials involved in past nation-building missions called it a critical yet common mistake for outsiders to impose their views on a country, without regard for the country's unique circumstances, and before all the internal factions have reached agreement.

That is the main problem in Afghanistan, said many with familiarity there.

Not surprisingly, the opposition to the troop increase is mounting before Obama has even said a word.

Other Democrats are skeptical about investing any more time and money into Afghanistan without clearly defined goals:

Democratic Rep. John Murtha - just back from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan - said Monday that he never got a clear definition of what constitutes an "achievable victory" for the United States and fears that American commanders are assuming more time for the war effort than voters at home will allow.

"I am still very nervous about this whole thing," Murtha told POLITICO. "If you had 10 years, it might work; if you had five, you could make a difference. But you don't have that long." [...]

"What is victory? It's a good question," said House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.). "I'm not as prone to jumping into wars as I used to be. He spent two months deciding," Berman said of Obama. "I think I can spend a few weeks."

Dick Cheney, who seems to have forgotten that he and Bush spent their time in office wreaking havoc on international relations and fighting wars just for the hell of it, has decided, for some strange reason, that his opinion still counts. He talks to the Politico, insinuating that Obama is a punk:

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president's "agonizing" about Afghanistan strategy "has consequences for your forces in the field."

"I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p' political reasons, where he's trying to balance off different competing groups in society," Cheney said.

"Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they've been asked to do?"

Obama administration officials have complained ever since taking office that they face a series of unpalatable - if not impossible - national security decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of the Bush administration's unwavering insistence on focusing on Iraq.

But Cheney rejected any suggestion that Obama had to decide on a new strategy for Afghanistan because the one employed by the previous administration failed.

Of course not. Because Bush/Cheney didn't do anything wrong. The denial continues:

During the interview, Cheney laced his concerns with a broader critique of Obama's foreign and national security policy, saying Obama's nuanced and at times cerebral approach projects "weakness" and that the president is looking "far more radical than I expected."

"Here's a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing," Cheney said. "I think our adversaries - especially when that's preceded by a deep bow ... - see that as a sign of weakness."

Party differences aside, both the Democrats and the Republicans are teaming up on one thing: no one wants to pay the cost of sending more troops.

The hefty price tag of the pending Afghan troop increase is already drawing opposition from many Congressional Democrats, deepening Mr. Obama's estrangement from his own party over the conflict.

Some Democrats are coalescing around a new proposal to levy a war tax to help fund the conflict. The proposal by Wisconsin Democratic Rep. David Obey, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, would impose a 1% tax on most Americans that rises to 5% for wealthier citizens. The administration has yet to weigh in on Mr. Obey's proposal, which would likely have a difficult time getting passed.

"If the president intends to go in over our objections, he should have to bear the burden of asking for a tax to pay for it," said Rep. Mike Honda (D., Calif.), a member of the House Appropriations Committee who supports the new tax. "You're talking about $30 billion or $40 billion per year in new spending. It's expensive."

Congressional Republicans have pressed Mr. Obama to fully heed his commanders' requests for more troops and military resources. Republicans, who oppose the idea of a war tax, generally favor borrowing the additional money necessary for the Afghan surge or reallocating other government funds.

Obama, Karzai hold hour-long video conference [AP/MSNBC]
A test for the blocks needed to rebuild a nation [Washington Post]
Democrats 'nervous' about Afghanistan plan [Politico]
Dick Cheney slams President Obama for projecting ‘weakness' [Politico]
Fight Looms on How to Pay for New War Plan [WSJ]

He writes:

…Why has Disney brought out a black princess now? It's not as if the black population of the world has suddenly increased in size or spending power to attract its attention. No, it is sheer, commercial opportunism on the part of Disney.

And:

"…The high-profile nature of President Obama and his First Lady means that this princess is being launched against a heightened consumer awareness of the dreams of black people coming true and it will receive lots of press coverage."

Now, Mitchell is a professor at Cass Business School in London. So he's looking at this from a business perspective. But the concept of The Princess And The Frog — originally titled The Frog Princess — had been kicking around at Disney/Pixar since at least 2006. In fact, the decision to put Randy Newman in charge of the music of the film was made in November 2006; casting for voices started in December 2006. Barack Obama was sworn in as a Senator the previous year. It doesn't quite add up. Plus, Disney's first princess, Snow White, was "born" in 1937. So the question shouldn't be "why now" but "why so late?" Why, for an all-American movie company, does the black princess come after an Asian princess and a Middle Eastern princess?

Is Disney interested in making money? Clearly. But the company is also interested in telling interesting stories, and a fairy-tale set in America, with black characters, qualifies. Even more troubling is this, from Mitchell:

With the increasing rise of successful black American women - think Tina Turner strutting her stuff at 70, Whitney Houston's recent comeback, the Oprah phenomenon and now Michelle Obama all being seen as "princesses" in their different ways - the aspirations of black American women to transform themselves have never been higher.

Really? black American women aspire to "transform themselves"? From what? Into what? This man writes as though every black American woman is living a gangster life in a ghetto, dreaming of being Princess Michelle Obama. There are millions of successful black women in this country, with millions of different journeys. Ms. Obama is not the sole role model black women have. Plus, she is admired by women of all colors. And if any black woman "aspires" to "transform," what the hell do Tina Turner and Whitney Houston have to do with it?

Upon showing parts of this article to Anna, she declared over IM:

"Heightened consumer awareness of the dreams of black people" is the stupidest thing I've read in a long time.

I can't agree more. If you want to argue that black Americans are being covered more by the media, I'd say duh; our president — and his race for office — did call a lot of attention to "being black in America" and resulted in lots of articles about How Black People Live Today and Who Black People Really Are and What Black People Want. But consumer awareness of dreams? The black experience is not a monolith; not a product. Dreams vary, and ONE black Disney character doesn't — and isn't meant to — represent them all.

Don't worry, though, Mitchell expects that any excitement about black people will pass:

Tiana is likely to be a niche as opposed to a mass market product in the long term. So, just as black American first ladies have a finite period of office, so, too, will Tiana.

Look, admittedly I have not seen the film, but it's so dismissive to think of this project as "niche" because it's a black princess. Time will tell, of course, but it's upsetting to assume that mass-market = white. Was The Cosby Show niche? Is Oprah niche? Is Beyoncé niche? Is the wise Latina known as Dora The Explorer niche?

But you know, arguing about Mitchell's ridiculous essay is pointless, really — the man is OBVIOUSLY a little… off. To wit:

…Depending on how many hearts she wins over, someone is bound to make the connection between Princess Tiana and Princess Diana, which will resonate even more strongly with consumers and give the character an added dimension of stardom.

Yeah…no.

Disney Cashes In On Obama Era With Princess Tiana [Times Of London]

Earlier: 11 Cool Things From The Princess And The Frog
5 Possible Problems With The Princess And The Frog
How About An Animated Movie With A Female Lead Who Isn't A Princess?
About That Princess And The Frog Spoiler…
Disney's First Black Princess Is A Little Green
An Early Look At Characters From Disney's Black Princess Movie
Why Has It Taken So Long For Disney To Create A Black Princess?
The Princess And The Frog
Why Is Disney's First Black Princess Such A Challenge?

[Washington, D.C., November 28. Image via Getty.]

WASHINGTON - NOVEMBER 28: (AFP OUT) U.S. President Barack Obama speaks with his mother in law Marian Robinson (C) and wife first lady Michelle Obama (R) during a college basketball game at George Washington University November 28, 2009 in Washington, DC. President Barack Obama attended the game between George Washington University and Oregon State, which is coached by his brother in law Craig Robinson. (Photo by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

Oprah's story begins in 1957 on Easter Sunday, the momentous day on which two church ladies with folksy speech impediments prophesy her rise to fame. Though Oprah is standing under a cross, she looks like she's possessed by the devil. Since this is an illustrated biography, maybe the best way to convey that she's a "beautiful young child" would be to draw her that way.


The thing the author decides to "get out of the way" on pages 2-3 is Oprah's entire adult life, or the part in which she actually does remarkable things. Think about the highlights of Oprah's career, then decide if you'd put Kirstie Alley in a bikini in the top 13.


Let's jump back 50 years and learn a little more about the woman who will grow up to interview Kirstie Alley about her (temporary) weight loss. It seems spending a few years with her loving grandmother has only made little Oprah scarier. Since her mom is busy trying to climb out of the panel, a giant telephone has to step in to break up the angry staring contest between Oprah and her baby sister.


After a brief interlude at her dad's house, where Oprah is treated well, she's returned to her mom. Like much of the comic, this page is sprinkled with excerpts from Maya Angelou poems. Tastefully portraying childhood sexual abuse in a comic book is a tall order, but this is pretty well done. Though, the illustrator does make it look like Oprah is literally locked in a cage.


To deal with the pain of having a "self-absorbed" mother and attending a school where someone forgot to draw many of her classmates' legs, Oprah "runs wild." This entails hooking up with some guy in an alley and dressing like she's in a Britney Spears video.


This page cleverly illustrates Oprah's transformation from tube top-clad hussy to buttoned-up bookworm. It would probably be easier for Good Oprah to read those Photoshopped books if she opened her eyes.


The illustrator has an "ah-ha" moment and decides to draw himself into the story to justify skipping important chunks of his subject's biography. Who knew Female Force comics are written by Eminem?


In 1998, Barbara Walters presents Oprah Winfrey with the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Daytime Emmys (video evidence proves Barbara actually hadn't been attacked with pepper spray that night.) The last few pages of the comic just show Oprah greeting fans along with quotes lifted from her acceptance speech.


Finally, Oprah fulfills her life's mission by single-handedly getting Barack Obama elected, which was certainly a triumph for "truth, justice, and the American way." Still, the comic book would have been more entertaining if Oprah's "female force" involved moving things with her mind or shooting lasers out of her eyes.

[Washington, D.C., November 25. Image via AP]

President Barack Obama, right, speaks as he pardons a turkey, Courage, left, with daughters Sasha Obama, 8, and Malia Obama, 11, the day before Thanksgiving, during a ceremony in the North Portico of the White House in Washington Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2009.(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

[Washington, D.C., November 25. Image via Getty]

US President Barack Obama (C), alongside mother-in-law Marian Robinson (R), picks up a child as he helps to hand out food as part of baskets for the needy at Martha's Table in Washington, DC, on November 25, 2009, the day before the Thanksgiving holiday. Martha's Table is a non-profit organization that provides food, shelter and clothing to those in need. AFP PHOTO / Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

Take the flowers, for instance: NPR's Andrea Seabrook writes:

The first lady said every detail of the decorations has meaning. The flower arrangements of roses, hydrangea and sweet pea blossoms were meant to evoke the classic American garden, while the rich, plum colors paid homage to India's state bird, the Indian peacock.

The dinner was held in a tent on the South Lawn of the White House, and the walls were decorated with locally grown magnolia, ivy and nandina, meant to reflect the Obamas' dedication to sustainability.

Even the tent was not just for added space: "As we all know, in India some of life's most treasured moments are often celebrated under the cover of a beautiful tent. It's a little like tonight," President Obama said.

As for the protocol, Michelle Obama said: "Protocol is critical. Protocol — how you stand, how you sit, who walks where — all of that is really important." There's a certain way to have a state dinner! For instance: honor guards in full dress uniform from all branches of the United States armed forces will be dispatched for ceremonial duty at the White House. There's a receiving line, win which the president introduces the visiting head of state to all of the guests. There's a five course meal (last night, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had plenty of vegetarian options, although prawns were served; desserts included pumpkin pie tart, pear tatin with whipped cream and caramel sauce).

But while the First Lady was entertaining international guests, she was involved in some immigration issues — sort of: Her action figures by Jailbreak Toys — which, as we previously noted, do not come with sleeves — are being detained US Customs and Border Protection. You'd think she was connected enough to know someone who could help with that.

For First Lady, Protocol Critical For State Dinner [NPR]
Pomp, Protocol and a Party Tent [Reuters]
Free Michelle! [Time]
Related: White House Releases State Dinner Guest List [ WaPo]
Earlier: Michelle O. Doll Does Not Come With Sleeves
Warning: Do Not Read While Hungry

While it's being billed as a "reward" for her work at the State Department, one wonders if it isn't because moving Hillary Clinton's get-it-done attitude wouldn't be helpful on the Senate floor.

Michael Hirsh, writing obnoxiously for Newsweek, thinks that Obama is going about foreign policy all wrong, and that only Secretary Clinton can fix the problem. Well, she could, if only she could let go of one certain pet issue (emphasis mine):

The one hope for forward movement on all these issues may be to rethink them entirely-not just the strategy but the personnel, too. That's not to say Holbrooke, Mitchell, and Co. should go, but their efforts should be subordinated to higher-level engagement, especially from Clinton. The secretary of state must play a much more active role on a regular basis; only Clinton, apart from Obama himself, has the necessary political star power, acumen, and gravitas to make a difference. It's clear that she can no longer afford to allow herself to remain at a strategic distance or to be sidetracked on women's issues, only occasionally parachuting in for ill-briefed appearances as she did in the Mideast.

Silly ladies! Don't we know that the real work of stabilizing a country by empowering a disenfranchised segment of the population will have to wait until we've sufficiently rattled sabres and swung dicks around?

Of course, Hirsh has a recommendation on exactly how to accomplish said dick-swinging:

For example, with additional troops likely to be deployed to Afghanistan soon, it may be wise to seek to negotiate with the Taliban, which we are not doing. At the same time it may be better policy not to negotiate with Tehran, as we are now doing. The West should consider new ways to isolate the discredited regime in Iran and find fresh methods of encouraging the still-insurgent election dissidents.

On the Mideast, perhaps we should drop all pretense of addressing final-status issues that are clearly irresolvable at present and look instead for a long-term interim arrangement[.]

However, Hillary Clinton will not be so easily dissuaded from looking at a different way to promote international peace ad equality.

"Women are key to our being able to resolve all of those difficult conflicts," Mrs. Clinton said in a speech in August. Since then, she has pursued initiatives to help women gain political power, personal safety and enough money to help their communities and countries improve economically and transition to democracy.

"There is nothing that has been more important to me over the course of my lifetime than advancing the rights of women and girls," she said in a Washington speech Nov. 6. "And it is now a cornerstone of American foreign policy."

And:

By elevating the plight of women so publicly, Mrs. Clinton has breathed new life into women's issues on Capitol Hill. Senator John Kerry and Representative William Delahunt, Massachusetts Democrats, are expected soon to introduce legislation to make permanent the ambassadorship Ms. Verveer now holds.

Their measure would also direct the administration to create a five-year strategy that reduces assaults against women and girls in at least 10 nations and creates ways to judge the effectiveness of U.S. aid in advancing the goal.

Clinton would be an asset in either position, so the question is clear: where does she want to be in 2016?

Could Hillary Clinton Replace Biden As Obama's VP? [US News and World Report]
Out With The Envoys [Newsweek]
Advancing Women A Top Clinton Goal [NY Times]

[Washington, D.C., November 23. Image via Getty]

US President Barack Obama stands with First Lady Michelle Obama shortly before greeting Indian President Manmohan Singh and his wife Gursharan Kaur at the North Portico of the White House November 24, 2009, as the Obamas host thier first official State Dinner. AFP Photo/Nicholas Kamm (Photo credit should read NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images)