"Afghanistan is not lost."

With those words, Barack Obama also made it clear that Afghanistan is now his war.

He reminded his audience, a collection of mostly young officers at the West Point military academy, that in 2001, "We sent our troops into Afghanistan and within a matter of months, al-Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.

President Barack Obama poses with West Point cadets after his speech on Dec. 1, 2009. (Charles Dharapak/Associated Press)

"The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope."

He also noted that a provisional government was established in Kabul under President Hamid Karzai and the International Security Assistance Force was set up to try to bring lasting peace to the region.

Then Obama reminded his audience, as he has many times in the past, that then his predecessor, George W. Bush, decided to wage a second war in Iraq.

"The wrenching debate over the Iraq War is well known and need not be repeated here," the president said.

"It is enough to say that for the next six years, the Iraq War drew the dominant share of our troops, our resources, our diplomacy, and our national attention. And that the decision to go into Iraq caused substantial rifts between America and much of the world."

The new plan

Whatever the critics may say, the White House clearly believes that this new battle plan — a rapid infusion of some 30,000 fresh troops and a renewed emphasis on training the Afghan army followed by a drawdown of U.S. soldiers — will work and work quickly as it did in 2001.

"After 18 months," the president said, "our troops will begin to come home."

That's quite a timeframe.

It took Obama 92 days from when he received the request for more troops from the U.S.'s chief Afghan commander, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, to become convinced the U.S. military can do the job.

The Pentagon's leaders have clearly closed ranks and fully support the plan. But that enthusiasm is not widely shared. Polls show a majority of Americans do not want more troops sent to Afghanistan. They are seeing it as another Vietnam.

Obama is gambling that he can hold off this sentiment with his proposed 18-month exit strategy.

Demonstrators protest against Obama's proposed troop deployment outside the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., in advance of his speech on Dec. 1, 2009. (Craig Ruttle/Associated Press)

He has left himself some wiggle room.

But he is, in effect, asking the American people to reserve judgment and give him one last chance to fix this problem, telling them that they can vote on how he is doing when he stands for re-election in 2012.

Not Vietnam

In the immediate aftermath of the speech, many pundits and congressional leaders jumped all over the exit-strategy proposal, arguing that setting a date for troop withdrawal was not what Afghans want to hear if they are being asked to choose sides in this conflict.

One Republican suggested the Taliban will just take a holiday, likening the situation to bank robbers who will simply wait for 18 months before robbing the tills again.

Obama took on the growing criticism that Afghanistan is turning into another Vietnam, saying "this argument depends upon 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 must important, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan."

At the same time, the president acknowledged that one of the core elements to his strategy is an effective new partnership with Pakistan.

In the past, he noted pointedly, there have been those in Pakistan who have argued that the struggle against extremism "is not their fight, and that Pakistan is better off doing little or seeking accommodation with those who use violence."

Obama made it clear that can't continue — something U.S. diplomats have been reportedly telling the top civilian and military leadership in Pakistan in no uncertain terms in recent weeks.

"We cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear," Obama said, effectively throwing down the gauntlet.

Earlier in the week, the Washington Post reported the Pakistanis have been promised more development resources, more weapons and, importantly, more long-term U.S. support.

As the president pledged: "America will remain a strong supporter of Pakistan's security and prosperity long after the guns have fallen silent."

These words, however, according to the Post, have been accompanied with the threats that if the Pakistanis won't deal with the al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents within their borders, then Washington will attack those targets regardless of Pakistan's sovereignty.

One noted omission

The president's speech, an address to the nation that was carried live on all the large television networks, was clear and stuck to his main points.

My guess is that it will be widely supported, in particular because it avoided any mention of nation building, indeed of imposing any kind of ideology on the Afghan situation.

Reporters interviewed soldiers at West Point and in Afghanistan and found them generally satisfied that the president had given them a mission they could believe in.

Still, Obama's speech left several questions unanswered. Many of them will be asked during weeks of congressional hearings, starting Wednesday, at which his top national security advisers and generals will be grilled.

NATO nations are expected to hold a press conference in Brussels on Friday, when there will be announcements of more troops for the region.

Other big international organizations will wade in and eventually Congress will provide the money for the task.

All that remains unclear is whether the American public believes in the mission and will give at least its tacit support to a war that may well get a lot bloodier in the months ahead.