Obama's Afghanistan-Pakistan Proposal and the Republican-Democrat Budget Fight

Our daily look at stories and topics that are lighting up the Internets:

Obama's Plan for Afghanistan-Pakistan

Obama announced his administration's strategy for Afghanistan today. The transcript is available here. Want more on the plan directly from the White House? Marc Ambinder posts this White House white paper. And while bloggers are generally supportive of the president's strategy, more than a few weren't happy with the new agenda. A view from each side of the debate:

Con: Liberal Tom Hayden opens his piece with this line: "The Obama Plan instead will accelerate any plans al Qaeda commanders have for attacking targets in the United States or Europe." Hayden goes on to argue that Obama's plan will only entrench the U.S. in the country, and exacerbate the mistakes made under George W. Bush. This liberal blogger wants an exit plan for Afghanistan, arguing that while Obama's Af-Pak plans may be better than Bush's, we still have no idea how the conflict will end (if it does). He writes: "But eight years into what will soon be longest war the U.S. has ever fought—the American Indian wars aside—there is still no exit plan for Afghanistan. And none in sight." Michael Yon is disappointed: Obama's troop levels are "not even in the neighborhood of being enough ... One can only expect that sometime in 2010, the President will again be forced to announce another increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan." And Andrew Sullivan thinks the U.S. is hastening its decline. Plus, he writes, there's simply no need: "As long as we can prevent terrorist bases forming that could target the US mainland, I do not see a reason for this kind of human and institutional enmeshment."

Pro: "Hats off to President Obama for making a gutsy and correct decision on Afghanistan," Robert Kagan writes, calling the Af-Pak policy pragmatic "in the best sense of the word." Liberal Matthew Yglesias calls Obama's plan "reasonable," happy as he is with the moderate increase in troop levels, the setting of benchmarks for progress in the country, and Obama's plan to recast the war as a regional issue. Joe Klein calls it "a sober, well-reasoned policy," listing six points to make his case. Philip Zelikow likes the administration's objectives but is holding on to his apprehensions. And military veteran Jon Soltz believes "there's a lot to like about the plan." He writes: "There are three key things I'm particularly focused on, that represent a stark departure from the previous administration. They show that this President not only has reasonable goals in the region, but a good idea of what it will take to get there." Read the three reasons Soltz favors the plan here.

The Budget Fight

The budget fight is shaping up today, and bloggers left and right couldn't resist joining (or speculating about) the fray. As we noted yesterday, the GOP took Obama's bait on proposing their own budget. And now the Republican proposal is drawing scrutiny alongside Obama's budget. Take for example this video just released by the DNC. This conservative blogger analyzes the challenges a minority budget inherently faces, which is not to say it was a bad move by the GOP. Conservative Byron York lambastes Obama for his hypocrisy on the federal deficit, arguing that his big spending plans will likely result in increased taxes. Conservative Nick Gillespie compiles his own roundup on the budget. Nate Silver has this tongue-in-cheek chart of the GOP budget plan. Highlight: "Shake down Mexican drug lords, go sell their weed to Kucinich." And Philip Klein agrees that Obama is acting like a schoolyard bully.