• Uh-oh. Mary J. Blige punched her husband in the face at her record release party. Dude was reportedly bleeding. She was heard screaming:

"You're not going to ruin my night!" And "What are you gonna do, Chris Brown me?" What happened to no more drama!?!?!? [Page Six]

• According to this report, Mary J. Blige "smacked" her husband for checking out a waitress. [NY Daily News]
• Have you noticed that Mary J. Blige and Rihanna have the same haircut? [TMZ]
• Miley Cyrus's new boyfriend, Liam Hemsworth, was once in a brawl after an event in Hollywood, so this piece claims he has a "history of violence." [TMZ]
• Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins actually broke up over the summer; they're just dropping the bomb on us now. For Christmas! Sniffle. [Page Six]
• Brittany Murphy's family has hired a security team for the funeral today. [TMZ]
• Vanessa Hudgens is suing the owners of a website which posted and refused to take down nude pictures of her. [TMZ]
• Managers for the kids from Jersey Shore have been trying to get clubs to pay $10,00 for appearance fees, but NYC hot spots are all, thanks but no thanks. [Page Six]
• New Jersey lawmakers want MTV to cancel Jersey Shore. [AP]
• Kristin Cavallari partied with the cast of Jersey Shore and the pictures speak for themselves. [ONTD]
• Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher bought their Christmas presents at a vintage store. [People]
• BREAKING: Renee Zellweger went for Starbucks. [3AM]
• Fox will order more seasons of American Idol with or without Simon Cowell. It's hard to imagine it without, yet surely the show would chug along… The voices are the true stars. [Reuters]
• BTW: American Idol will return to the top 24 format; the top 36 was "too unwieldy." [NY Post]
• Susan Boyle says: "It's been an absolutely brilliant year and I can't thank everyone enough for the support I've been given, not only here but around the world. I am the happiest I have ever been and truly enjoying myself." [Mirror]
• Sometimes people do not want to be linked to Tila Tequila, and the gossip columns should respect that! [Page Six]
• Unsolicited uterus update: Even though Tila Tequila tweeted that she was pregnant, what she meant was she's about to get pregnant. She is ready to be a surrogate. [NY Daily News]
• Glee won four Satellite Awards, which could mean it's got a good chance at the Golden Globes. [NY Post]
• Rob McElhenny, aka Mac on It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, has bought a bar in Philadephia's Old City neighborhood. [ONTD]
• Uh, Tom Waits is in The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus? Didn't realize that. He says he's not an actor, but, "I do some acting." And: "Nobody wants you to be good at two things… They'd rather get a specialist, a guy who just works on eyes or scalp or ankles. Nobody wants a general practitioner. But the arts are such that there's a place where they overlap." Check out his character's pencil thin mustache at the link. [LA Times]
• Avatar is doing okay here in the US, but it's doing much better outside of the country — with a total $285 million at the box office worldwide. Since the movie has a $300 million price tag, it's almost about to break even. [Forbes]
• Seam Penn is dating hot young things. [Page Six]
• Rhoda's Valerie Harper is returning to TV to play Brad Garrett's mom on an episode of Til Death. [Page Six]
• "The secret comic-book origin of Sherlock Holmes." [Reuters]
• "As a little dainty, beautiful baby I just worshipped her, but now she's at an age where we fight, where sometimes she hates me, sometimes I get really mad at her. It's like, 'Oh you must be a bad mother,' No, I'm not a bad mother. I'm a very good mother" — Courtney Love on Frances Bean Cobain. [Page Six via Spinner.com]
• "We ate a lot of chicken, you know, because chicken's cheap, we had so much chicken — chicken backs, chicken everything... to this day, I can only eat small pieces or else I feel funny." — Eating chicken reminds Jay-Z of when he was poor. [Mirror via O Magazine]
• "I'm a firm believer that you can't will anything sooner than it's destined to happen no matter how much you want it. That's the way I live my life, and it's the way I'm able to keep my sanity in this industry."— Law & Order's Anthony Anderson, who used to work the phones for Ticketmaster. [WSJ]
• "I think the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don't see anything different. On the domestic side, look here: What's so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property. Look at the bailout of Wall Street. Why not the bailout of Main Street? He may be just a different face, and that face may happen to be black-and if it were Hillary Clinton, it would happen to be a woman. But what choices do they have within the structure?" — Danny Glover is disappointed with Barack Obama. [The Life Files via News One]
• "They're just the most brilliant in the world. My fans are fucking really smart — they're art students, they're club kids, and some of them are just normal Top 40-listening kids in high school who don't feel like they have an identity yet and they're searching for one. My dad was at a show the other night and afterwards he said, 'Do you think your fans are smart?' and I said, 'Oh hell yeah, my fans are smart,' and he said, 'You know what, I was thinking the same thing during the show.' Every song I did, they remade on their own, and every photograph that I took, they took their own version of it. They remade my music videos, they designed clothes for me. They wrote poetry and made films and designed all sort of amazing paintings." — Lady Gaga is a fan of her fans. [Mirror via MTV News]

[Washington, DC; December 20. Image via The Official White House Photostream.]

A White House nurse prepares to administer the H1N1 vaccine to President Barack Obama at the White House on Sunday, Dec. 20, 2009.
(Official White House photo by Pete Souza)

After Howard Dean articulated his position in favor of killing the bill (remember: he's saying that the good should be maintained, but the removal of major provisions removes the need for a major bill), the responses and reactions began pouring in.

Dean has spent time refining and clarifying his response, saying to Salon:

What irks him the most in the current bill, he said, is that it permits insurance companies to charge as much as 300 percent more to some customers than others. So even though they must provide coverage to anyone who applies — known as "guaranteed issue" — the price differential that can be charged to older or sicker customers virtually erases that promise. "If you have to pay $20,000 a year for insurance, what good does it do if you have guaranteed issue?" he asked rhetorically. "Which is in fact what you'd have to pay if they can charge you three times as much as they do ordinary people. They have 300 percent rate differences in that bill. In Vermont, we have 20 percent rate differences, and that works."

The bill lacks sufficiently stringent controls on insurance company pay for executives and other wasteful expenditures as well, Dean argues, which is why he also opposes its mandate requiring all Americans (with few exceptions) to buy health insurance. "Why should you force Americans into a system that takes between 20 and 30 percent off the top for CEO salaries and return on equity?" he asked. "You're forcing them into that system and it's unfair." There should be no mandate without a public option, he said.

Uber-pundit Keith Olbermann launched the second wave on Wednesday night's Countdown.

Other notables from Olbermann's comment (taken from his diary at Daily Kos):

There could not be a finer line between the words compromise and compromised and tonight, with the greatest possible reluctance, I believe I have to go on the air and state my opinion that the Senate bill in its current form has clearly crossed that line and, as currently constituted, cannot be passed.

The American Insurance Cartel is the Death Panel, and this Senate bill does nothing to destroy it. Nor even to satiate it.

It merely decrees that our underprivileged, our sick, our elderly, our middle class, can be fed into it, as human sacrifices to the great maw of corporate voraciousness, at a profit per victim of 10 cents on the dollar instead of the current 20.

Sir, if they are going to call you a socialist no matter what you do, you have been given full unfettered freedom to do what you know is just. The bill may be the ultimate political manifesto, or it may be the most delicate of compromises. The firestorm will be the same. So why not give the haters, as the cliché goes, something to cry about.

This sentiment is mirrored by many progressives, who are concerned that reform will be a much larger benefit to insurance companies than to those it was originally conceived to help. Nate Silver, Markos Moulitsas and Jon Walker are arguing in circles about benefits and costs. However, I found stumbled across an easier way to explain it, thanks to my friend G.D. at PostBourgie, who recently posted a plea to progressives who want to scrap the reform bill:

This bill will be imperfect in a lot of ways. A public insurance option would have given the government the ability to negotiate lower prices with hospitals, which would have in turn lowered the cost for people insured privately. Even a Medicaid buy-in, the last, best compromise on the table after the all the public option stuff was killed, would have been a considerable improvement over what this final bill will look like. But it's worth remembering that Social Security, a landmark piece of progressive legislation, was a mess when Roosevelt signed it into law. In its original form, it effectively excluded women, people of color, farmers, nurses and tons of other folks. These were horrible exemptions, but to mix metaphors, the safety net was expanded as legislators added meat to the original skeleton.

G.D. also borrows an analogy from Nate Silver, who writes:

Suppose the following scenario plays out when you're trying to buy a used car:

Dealer: The price of the car is $2,000.
You: For that beat-up Honda Accord? I'll give you $1,200.
Dealer: Nope, it's $2,000.
You: How about $1,500?
Dealer: I'm going to stick with $2,000.
You: Will $1,700 get it done?
Dealer: My best and final offer is $2,000.
You: Give a guy a break! $1,875?
Dealer: $2,000.
You: $1,995 and a Slurpee coupon?
Dealer: Now we're talking - step into my office.

Is that a negotiation in bad faith? Is the dealer moving the goalposts? No. He's being very stubborn and very firm - but he's also being very explicit about what he wants. It's possible that you were an incompetent negotiator and that maybe if your first offer had come in a little lower, or a little higher, you could have gotten a better price. But more likely the dealer simply had more of the leverage and ultimately $2,000 is an acceptable price to you, even if it's more than you were hoping to pay.

But to me, there is a logical flaw in that argument. As I wrote in G.D.'s comment section:

People say it's a good first draft. But the government is not a school, and there are no deadlines for completion of these things. Much legislation has been deemed "a first draft" – then left alone for 20- 50 years before the next crisis comes up.

I quoted Nez this morning, but as I have said before – as an uninsured person, I am hoping against hope that this thing would turn out well. But as it stands now (and we haven't even had the big House/Senate throwdown!) the only guarantees are that (1) insurance companies can't turn me down (good) and (2) health care coverage will be mandatory, regardless of what they come up with (WTF?) There are other good things in the bill, but most of that has been hijacked. They are asking for too much trade and not enough reward.

[That being said, I] Disagree with Silver's analogy. It's like I walked into a dealership, mindful of cost but looking for a decent four door sedan. It doesn't mean we weren't flexible, but the conversation is more like:

Dealer: The price of the car is $2,000.
You: For that beat-up Honda Accord? I'll give you $1,200.
Dealer: Nope, it's $2,000.
You: Wait a sec…Blue Book on that is only $1,000!
Dealer: I'm going to stick with $2,000.
You: (Walk away, not trying to be robbed)

There's no Blue Book for Health Care Reform, but this cost/benefit isn't looking right.

In essence, we are being asked to support a bill that may be a lemon.

G.D. pointed to Social Security as an example of a first draft that evolved. This morning, Paul Krugman weighed in to the New York Times op-ed page with the same analogy:

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage - and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it's now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

There are two key things wrong with that assumption.

Social Security Act was signed into law in 1935. But many people did not benefit from the laws until 1954, when a lot of the groups originally discriminated against were explicitly covered under the bill. According to The Color of Wealth, it was almost two decades before Social Security was workable and benefiting the most vulnerable groups:

As the U.S. Congress debated and the passed the Social Security Act of 1933, millions of workers were required to fill out applications where the choices were limited to white, Negro, and other: Indian, Mexican, and Asian. The Social Security Act disallowed coverage for farm workers, laborers, housemaids, and others in the service sectors. [...]

Social Security did not explicitly exclude blacks and Latinos, but by excluding agricultural and service work, the effect was the same. (p.146, p. 289)

Wealth goes on to explain how, after the 1950s era reforms, Social Security became the most effective social program we have. It doesn't mean that it is perfect. But Social Security, as we know it today, allows for many seniors to stay out of poverty. While we do have a 10% poverty rate for seniors, it is estimated that rate would be close to 50% without the program. In addition, the program that initially excluded minorities was transformed into a lifeline, especially for African American communities:

Because people of color have less income from stock holdings or capital gains than whites, social security is especially important to them: it is the sole source of income for 40% of elderly African Americans. The shorter life span of African American men mean that both survivor and disability benefits go disproportionately to African Americans. While African Americans make up 12% of the U.S. population, 23 percent of children receiving social security survivor benefits are African American, as are about 17% of disability beneficiaries. (p. 284)

So, it while we can look at the long term on this bill, it is important to note that it was close to two decades before most people were allowed to benefit. And as this debate has worn on, the goal posts seem to shifted from "getting Americans affordable coverage" to getting "most people affordable coverage" to "taking a first step." But if the American people need reform now, as many of the initial speeches on the subject proposed, why would be want an incremental change - particularly as history has shown that governmental change creeps like a glacier?

Secondly, the Social Security Act was not revisited because of the good will of Congress, but because people were being actively denied benefits due to discrimination, on many different fronts. It was because of the agitation of groups like the NAACP that change occurred - and I, for one, do not believe the bill will be revisited unless pressure continues to mount. Why do we need to wait for insurance companies to prove they are not acting in good faith to take reform seriously? If columnists like Krugman want to invoke historical trends, they need to look at the whole picture - if the American public has learned that bills are frequently inadequate when they pass, the lesson we need to learn is to get things right the first time.

However, many Democrats disagree. Former President Bill Clinton flexed his political might in support of the bill yesterday, saying:

Our only responsible choice is the path of action. Does this bill read exactly how I would write it? No. Does it contain everything everyone wants? Of course not. But America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

And this is a good bill: it increases the security of those who already have insurance and gives every American access to affordable coverage; and contains comprehensive efforts to control costs and improve quality, with more information on best practices, and comparative costs and results. The bill will shift the power away from the insurance companies and into the hands of consumers.

David Axelrod agrees, warning:

"We're on the verge of doing something that would make an enormously positive difference for people," Axelrod said, adding later, "I don't think you want this moment to pass. It will not come back again."

Axelrod - and by extension, the Obama Administration - argues that this is a bill "about the American people."

This debate isn't completely polarized. There are many, many people who fall somewhere within the opposing calls for all-in or all-out on the legislation. Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, who represents a large majority of America's unionized workers, says that we don't need to kill the bill. What we need to do is to fix it:

Our message is that it's time for the Senate to finish its job. We probably have the best we are going to do, and trying to improve the Senate bill doesn't seem realistic right now. The real final chapter in this story is going to be written in the conference committee. That's where all of us have to push together—to try to improve the affordability issues that, we think, the Senate did not handle as appropriately as the House. [...]

We have an organizational culture that allows individual senators to stop a vote from happening or stop a debate from taking place. I think that is morally wrong. It hurts America, diminishes its ability to solve problems. No single senator is so important, their ideas so important, that they should be able to stop us from having a debate over critical issues.

But somehow, as pressures mount to pass the bill according to the original timetable, and Republicans lock ranks in hopes to delay the bill, the concrete idea of why Congress started this process in the first place feels farther and farther away.

"It's unfair" [Salon]
Keith Olbermann joins call to kill bill [Politico]
Special Comment: Not Health, Not Care, Not Reform [Daily Kos]
20 Questions, 20 Responses [FiveThirtyEight]
A Good, Imperfect First Draft [Postbourgie]
The Public Option Fight May Not Have Been Winnable [FiveThirtyEight]
Pass the Bill [NY Times]
The Color of Wealth: The Story Behind the U.S. Racial Wealth Divide (Paperback) [Amazon]
Social Security Act [Wikipedia]
Bill Clinton on Health Care [Time]
Axelrod: 'Insane' for Democrats to oppose health-reform bill [Washington Post]
Andy Stern: Don't Kill the Bill. Fix It. [The New Republic]
Health care time line still on track [Politico]
Senate Republicans vow to delay health-care vote [Washington Post]

Earlier: "Kill The Bill": Is Real Health Care Reform Still Worth Fighting For?

• Beyoncé's first perfume, Heat, launches in February. She says, "Red is one of my favorite colors, as is gold." And the bottle is intended to look antique, because her mother had so many old perfumes when she was little. [WWD]

• Whitney Port, of The Hills/The City fame, says, of fellow fashion-designing show alums Lauren Conrad and Heidi Montag, "I put myself in a different sort of realm as them." Port's biggest fear with her label is "people not understanding your point of view, not being able to get it. But I think my biggest competition is myself." [WWD]
• About 200 Chanel employees picketed the company's headquarters just outside of Paris. Workers who make less than €3000 a month have been offered a 1% pay raise; instead, they would like a raise of 2.5%. [WWD]
• Charlize Theron embroidered a baobab tree on a pair of red Toms shoes for her limited-edition collaboration with the eco-friendly, ethically managed company. Ten thousand of the shoes will be distributed free to children in her native South Africa, and the profits from the $54 slip-ons will benefit Theron's charity. [People]
• According to Jimmy Choo, Madonna thinks his shoes are better than sex. "Madonna told me that buying a pair of my shoes is more satisfying than having sex with a man. At least you know they are going to last for ever!" [OK!]
• Tory Burch is growing overseas. The designer recently opened a flagship in Manila, and her first Tokyo store, which just fêted its launch, will be joined by 30 more outposts across the country over the next few years. [WWD]
• Check out the decade in Olsen style, from distressed denim and tube tops to Chloé wedges and studded Givenchy jackets, via the notorious NYU bag lady period. [Style.com]
• Ever since Barack Obama identified his wife's pin, on Oprah, as one he had purchased for her at Garavelli on their anniversary, people have been buying Garavelli jewelry like it's going out of style. [WWD]
• Lady Gaga curated a selection of goods for sale at the site Not Just A Label. You can snap up her fringed lace half hat from the video for "Bad Romance" for a surprisingly reasonable £92, should you feel the need to dress like a deranged Spanish widow from 2078. [NJAL]
• Malls in Dubai still seem busy, despite the debt crisis there. [WWD]
• Hilary Rhoda will be in next year's Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition. Friend-to-Jezebel Liz Glover recently interviewed the model and asked her about her shoot for last year's issue. "For a model, it is a major achievement and a business tactic to widen my fan base," said the Chevy Chase native, over e-mail. "I work out every day, and to have a strong body instead of something frail like in fashion magazines, that's something to look up to." Rhoda, of course, sometimes does appear in the pages of fashion magazines — she once made the cover of American Vogue. Could her athletic look gain high-fashion acceptance? We can dare to dream. [Washington Times]
• Model Jamie Bochert recently ran 12 blocks to get her purse back from a robber. Now that's an athlete. Also she is in the new Lanvin campaign. [WWD]
• Christian Siriano says his maternity line includes party dresses because, "When you're pregnant you still do the same things that you would normally do — go to events, baby showers and weddings. Not every brand does sweet, fun party dresses like this." [People]
• Says Carmen Dell'Orefice, whose name this time Page Six spells correctly: "Sympathy I don't need. Another ad campaign would be great." Dell'Orefice lost most of her fortune in Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme. [P6]
• More details have emerged about the fashion business incubator program launching soon in New York. Twelve lucky designers will be given the opportunity to rent studio space in the heart of the garment district for under market rates — around $1500 a month. The program is underwritten by a $200,000 grant from the New York City Economic Development Corporation and operated by the Council of Fashion Designers of America. The tenant designers will be announced this month. [FWD]
• Because of dismal sales, Ben Sherman is shuttering its women's line. The company earlier this year stopped making children's wear. [WWD]
• Nike's quarterly results for the period ended November 30 were only slightly down on last year's. Profits and sales at the world's largest sporting goods company each fell by 4%. [WSJ]

A rep responded: "I assure you the model of choice was not meant to slight our petite customers in any way. I stand at a whopping 5'1 so believe me, I feel your pain. Basically our choice to use a standard sized model vs. petite really comes down to logistics... Although we have petite offerings at times... we are not a petite specific site. To cast and book additional models, do model/grooming changes on set would take up more time than we can offer given the shoot schedule." • Collagen-enhanced foods including yogurt, tea, cocktails, and cheesecake are all the rage among Japanese women. They hope eating collagen will help fight wrinkles, but experts say they do nothing. • A poll of 800 self-identified "news watchers" found that Hillary Clinton is now much more popular than Barack Obama. Clinton has a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating, while Obama has a 51 percent approval rating and a 45 percent disapproval rating. • Women have a more sensitive touch than men, but Canadian scientists discovered it has nothing to do with sex. "We now understand that this sex difference is not actually a 'sex effect', but rather an effect of finger size," says one researcher, who made the discovery after asking male and female student to detect fine grooves on a surface. • A new study says that a group of teenage girls "at risk" for obesity had more success keeping their BMI from increasing with a year of Interpersonal Psychotherapy than another group of overweight girls that took traditional health education classes. The therapy has been shown to help reduce depression and tackle binge eating. • The "No To Rape" campaign has gathered more than 3,000 signatures on a petition to make raping your wife illegal in Singapore. Currently there is a marital rape immunity law, but the group hopes to change the law when they present the petition to Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in the next few days. • Two 10-year-old British boys have been charged with the rape of an 8-year-old girl. "The incident took place in Hayes, in west London, on October 27, that's pretty much all the detail we have," a police spokesman said. • A British woman is suing her gynecologist for sexual harassment because she claims he gave her two "leg buckling" orgasms in under two minutes during an exam, while a nurse was in the room. Bibi Giles said that after Dr. Angus Thomson performed an internal exam in 2006, "... there was no doubt that the conversation and touch was sexual. When I realised he was doing something out of the boundary I didn't want to say anything as I was still under his care." Giles says he talked about having an affair with her on many visits, but she stayed with him because she didn't want to go through the "intrusion" of another gynecologist. •

Now, I know a mini-cottage industry has sprung up for the sole purpose of analyzing the Obama's marriage. And Kate Harding touched on much of it when she analyzed the NY Times Magazine cover story about the First Marriage and the dynamics of power inherent in a relationship when one person is the President. She noted:

Despite my focus on the First Lady's sacrifices and the inequality of the marriage here (I am a humorless feminist, after all), Kantor's portrait of the Obama's marriage is really quite sweet, warts and all. They joke. They flirt. They go on dates and ignore the conservatives who flip out about our tax dollars going toward dinner and a show. That's just not the whole picture, and Michelle herself believes revealing the warts has a higher purpose.

Yet, for some reason, I couldn't shake the thought of two pieces on The Root about what reasonable expectations are for a mate. Jenée Desmond-Harris, in a piece called "What Single Women Can Learn from Michelle,"advised women to learn toembrace your goofy, badly -dressed, non dancing nerd and David Swerdlick, writing a response called "What Single Women Can't Learn From Michelle," asked all the single ladies to stop looking for the next President, stop gold-digging, realize hidden potential, and, uh, date outside the race.

I had issues with these types of articles before, but it wasn't until watching Barack Obama give Michelle the eye, laugh and joke, and actually listen to her speak instead of cutting her off like so many other powerful male public figures that I realized what people who say they want a Barack Obama actually want.

They want a partner that treats them with love, honors them by respecting their opinions, and listens like a friend.

Somehow, I don't think that's too much for any of us to ask for.

What Single Women Can Learn From Michelle [The Root]
What Single Women Can't Learn From Michelle [The Root]

Earlier: NYT Magazine: How Can A Marriage Be Equal When One Of You Is President?

[Washington, D.C., December 13. Image via Getty]

WASHINGTON - DECEMBER 13: (AFP OUT) U.S. President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama pose with children dressed as elves during the Christmas in Washington celebration on December 13, 2009 in Washington, DC. The annual event that supports the National Children's Medical Center, is a program being taped at the National Building Museum and airs on December 20 on cable TV. (Photo by Joshua Roberts-Pool/Getty Images)

• 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)