Technical issues are impeding my weekly chat with Ed Morrissey. But he mentioned a good question while we were waiting (in vain, it seems) for the servers to work. Obama says that even knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed the surge.

So why does he want a surge of additional troops in Afghanistan?

It ties well into a point raised by Jen Rubin. America has won wars in the past because the president, the armed forces, and the people have decided to do what it takes to win — not because three-quarters of the way into finishing the job, we’ve decided it’s too expensive. How long until we would hear arguments that the billions being spent in Afghanistan could be better spent at home?

Which figure’s approval for a plan for U.S. troops’ departure is more important: Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki or Gen. David Petraeus?

And when Petraeus’ discussion with Obama is described as “animated“… Does General Petraeus seem like an “animated” kind of guy? Is that the vibe he’s given off during his appearances on Capitol Hill? Is the “animated” description a subtle way of hinting Petraeus skepticism of Obama’s plan was, shall we say, vociferous?