This is perhaps the most confused speech President Obama has delivered. It is a speech which is uncertain whether it is one about foreign policy and the “conclusion” of a war—and for that matter it is uncertain about which war is its object—or whether it is about domestic policy. It reflects the views of a man with fundamentally no demonstrated prior interest in foreign policy.

Thus there is no attempt to argue that the United States has achieved any strategic objective in Iraq. Indeed, in 2002, State Senator Obama argued that the United States had no strategic interest impelling it to go to war in Iraq, and he seems as certain that it has none now in 2010. This rather myopic view ignores that the very presence of U.S. forces on the ground in Iraq has created a vital strategic interest, even were one to assume that there was no prior such interest. From the second sentence of the speech on, the message is that the United States cannot afford the war, not that a strategic objective has been met allowing the United States honorably to withdraw its troops.

A president's speech from the Oval Office isn't what it was 30 years ago. The power of the bully pulpit has diminished. Thirty years ago the president had three networks who had 90 percent of the audience, there wasn't the Internet. He had a virtual monopoly.

The president is trying to talk over the conversation that is going on in the room while he's speaking. That was not the case when John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan were president.

It's a function of technology and the fact that more people are capable of making their voices heard. The story of the Oval Office speech is as much about immediate reaction as what the president himself has said. I think the power of these speeches has diminished — the audience is diminished and the impact is diminished. The conversation has gotten out of his control.

A difficult, complicated speech without a clear message. He successfully avoided claiming victory and adopting a triumphalist tone, but being unable to proclaim victory he ended by delivering an uncertain message. He points at problems and a long slog ahead. The speech will not satisfy critics unhappy about the withdrawal of combat troops. It will not help inspire or renew confidence.

It would have been strange if Mr. Obama had not done anything to mark the withdrawal of combat troops. It was difficult to do so without slipping into triumphalism, which would have been inappropriate since there is no way in which he could convince people the U.S. is withdrawing combat troops because the war is won. But he goes to the opposite extreme and delivers a downbeat speech.

“Lasting peace” cannot be built on an illusion. The U.S. faces genuine enemies who have attempted to frustrate U.S. interests in Iraq. Some of these enemies are State, others non-State, actors, including but not limited to Iran and al-Qaida. To the extent that these malefactors will have outlasted the U.S. in Iraq, it is difficult to see how lasting peace is achieved by this policy. Indeed, it is not beyond the realm of imagining that the U.S. will have to send troops in again to Iraq in another 10 or 15 years to deal with unfinished business, just as it did in 2003 after the 1991 Gulf War.

This theme of uncertainty prevails throughout the speech -- the moment is difficult and while there is hope there is also a lot of work required...

This central theme is a hard one to make when it is based on the end of combat missions in Iraq. Sadly, that milestone, bought at such a high cost, and leading to such an uncertain future, is unlikely to boost American morale or convince other nations of America's competence and strength.

Confidence and commitment always appeal, but weren't they what mistakenly got us into Iraq in the first place?

He does not sound convinced himself.

On Tuesday's NewsHour, syndicated columnist Mark Shields said that President Obama made a campaign promise that he would end combat operations in Iraq, and that "he meets that promise tonight, at least in literal terms." However, he points out there are still many noncombat troops, contractors and others in Iraq. "But as far as formal combat operations, they're ending."

Obama is in a strange position with this speech. He can't directly criticize the decision to wage the war, or its mismanagement prior to 2007, because that would undercut his praise for the troops and call into question the wisdom of any long-term commitment to an alliance with Iraq. Nor does he mention, here or later, the strategic damage done by the war, especially in strengthening Iran. These unvisited issues shadow the speech.

Praise for the military is the most positive note in the entire speech, both here and at the end of the speech. But even in relation to the military, Obama is forced later to acknowledge shortcomings in the government's commitment to take care of veterans.

The main and only clear theme of this speech seems to be praise for the troops. It seems that when it comes to Iraq, even today, this is the only point on which Democrats and Republicans can fully agree.

He paid great praise to the troops [...] that's the one unifying factor in this whole war. Left, right, pro-war, anti-war, we agree on the troops. [...] I think it's a direct result of what happened in Vietnam, when troops returned and were treated with indifference and disrespect.

One cannot help but remember President Bush's announcement in May 2003 that major combat operations had ended. Clearly the U.S. can declare that it is no longer willing to fight and sacrifice in Iraq. But it obviously cannot force those who would frustrate U.S. interests in Iraq from continuing the fight.

Whatever else may be said, it's clear that at least part of Barack Obama's historical mission is to be the president who extracted us from a combat role in the Middle East.

The speech was all about threading the needle. It was a very muted speech in a number of ways. The president had been a strong critic of the war and opponent of the surge. And I thought, every president wants to talk about peace and prosperity. This president found himself talking about if not peace and prosperity, something less than that.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that this arbitrary date for the withdrawal of combat troops is more related to a campaign promise fulfilled in anticipation of the November 2010 mid-term elections, rather than events on the grounds. To that extent, the policy underlying the speech is reckless. It amounts to an abandonment of Iraq to its fate, at a time when Iran's influence has grown exponentially there, and as Iran is poised to challenge U.S. interests in the Gulf and elsewhere in the region.

Here's the main message on Iraq: promise fulfilled. Will anyone notice? They would had it not been! Slam dunk, but only two points.

This is his personal victory: he made a promise and kept it.

“[S]ecurity incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began." This phrase is Rumsfeldian in its disconnect from reality. Iraq's official numbers show that nearly 550 people were killed in July 2010. Moreover, terrorist attacks in Baghdad are no longer of the “soft target” variety. Over the past 12 months, they have targeted the governmental infrastructure of the State: Ministry buildings, army and police recruiting stations, and so on. They have become far more spectacular and successful, and they have corresponded with the withdrawal of U.S. forces from the city.

This is a gamble. Is considerable skill enough? And what happens if it isn't?

This is surprisingly weak and in the end sounds defensive. Obama is trying to respond to the criticism that he is pulling out of the fight while Iraq is still besieged. But he fails to make a strong argument that Iraqis are capable of taking over.

Iraq Drawdown: 5 Voices From Baghdad on the Security Switch

Right message: you want help, get your act together. Oh how he and Biden wish [the Iraqis] had done it before tonight! That might have been a three-pointer.

He plays down the incapacity of Iraqi leaders to make the compromises necessary to form a government. He has to play it down not to offend the Iraqi leadership, but as a result he glosses over a major problem.

“Supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counter-terrorism missions” is new, or at least omitted elsewhere. Not surprising, but these few words may mean a lot of action.

Why does he keep saying “U.S. troops will leave Iraq by the end of next year”? He knows the Iraqis will need a lot of help, especially with their navy and air force, after 2011. Would we really say no if they ask?

This last point is a technical foul: the civilians moved into the lead on those issues years ago, and now they are drawing down almost as fast as the military.

A reminder to critics who argue that the U.S. should not pull all troops out of Iraq, that the withdrawal is not optional but mandated by an agreement with the government of Iraq. He misses an opportunity to remind listeners that the agreement was negotiated by the Bush administration.

“Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders.” Here is a clear statement of the intent of the United States to abandon the promotion of democracy as a foreign policy objective, something President Obama has hinted at before, including in his Cairo speech.

Although President Obama refers to a "long-term partnership," he doesn't spell out why this is desirable, or worth the commitment of more resources. If he truly seeks such a partnership it is important for him to spell out its strategic value and make that clear to the public. That isn't really made clear here. Nor is there any mention of any moral responsibility to stand by Iraq until it is more stable, given the tremendous physical and societal destruction set in motion by the war, the tens, or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, and the millions of Iraqi refugees.

Good, but vague. No points.

“Now, it is time to turn the page.” This statement strikes me as astoundingly cavalier. Again, the U.S. is not ending the war—only its commitment in that war. To those who wish to continue the fight against the new order in Iraq, or those such as Iran and Syria who wish to see Iraq perpetually weak, the U.S. withdrawal will serve only as encouragement for them to continue to disrupt the attempt to secure the peace.

From here on, the speech is a litany of the difficult problems the U.S. is facing. De facto, he is admitting that the U.S. had to get of Iraq in order to face other problems at home and in Afghanistan.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama often used the phrase "turn the page" when he was out on the stump rallying his supporters to reject many of the policies and much of the politics of the Bush administration. Most specifically, Mr. Obama rode an anti-Iraq war fervor to victory in his battle for the Democratic presidential nomination as he used his opposition to the Iraq war as a "turn the page" calling card.

In the Oval Office tonight, President Obama put the phrase to use in a dramatically different context. Addressing the nation from the very same desk where President Bush informed the country the war had begun, President Obama declared that the United States has met its responsibilities in Iraq and it is time to "turn the page."

The president also made sure to move from an anti-war candidate to a commander-in-chief winding down one war and escalating another when he spoke of his conversation earlier today with President George W. Bush and acknowledged their differences on Iraq. Here, too, he urged a turning of the page away from the former political divisions over Iraq.

A good try at healing wounds. Two points, off the backboard.

He not only wanted to turn the page on Iraq, but turn the page on Afghanistan and he wants to turn the page on the economy.

It was a reboot speech. I thought it had nice grace notes, referring to his conversation with President Bush. But you know five minutes later he pointed out that by spending a trillion dollars on this war he had derailed our own economy.

I truly fail to understand the wisdom of fighting a war on an announced withdrawal table.

The references to Afghanistan don't clarify our goals there. And although the president says the pace of troop reductions in 2011 will be "determined by conditions on the ground" the emphasis of the remarks is still on withdrawal, although it is likely that conditions will force this withdrawal to be slow.

So clear about al-Qaida, so unclear about what Afghanistan is supposed to look like as we leave!

Tuesday night on the NewsHour, David Brooks said that President Obama did not settle in this speech the internal argument his administration is having over the pace of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan. "He dodged that issue. He did not settle or tip his hand in any way in that dispute."

His attempts to move from bad to good news sound unconvincing. The good news is vague at best.

'More hard work ahead' is the theme from here on.

The president has made his expected segue into the need to focus on domestic issues, but there is little detail here, and as the speech indicates, he is still committed to expensive ventures abroad dictated by security needs and past commitments, ventures for which he seems unwilling or unable to make a passionate case to the American public.

He wants you to know he knows what you know he should be doing.

President Obama used a portion of his Iraq speech Tuesday night to focus on the economy. It would have been quite difficult to address the nation from the Oval Office without mentioning the dominant issue on the minds of most Americans. Interestingly, he tied his economic remarks to Iraq by painting the weak economy as an enemy combatant in the war here at home.

He attempted to appeal to the sense of unity Americans display in support of the troops on the battlefield abroad as a much needed resource in the domestic battle against the recession.

As he announced the end of combat operations in Iraq, President Obama suggested there are two wars left on his desk to manage. The one in Afghanistan and the one taking place in communities across the United States against high unemployment.

During his campaign for the presidency, then-Senator Obama often critiqued President Bush for taking his eye off the ball in Afghanistan by sending American forces into Iraq. Tonight, the president was attempting to keep his eye on the ball with regard to the economy while still marking the fulfillment of his most prominent campaign pledge.

The president had to come back to the economy at the end of the speech, Shields said. "This political war at home [...] is about the economy, it really is," he said, adding that some Democrats were grumbling about "why are we doing this speech, here goes another week without economy."

Swoosh.

Little comfort should be taken in the last sentence, for it may betoken no more than Sun Tzu's aphorism, “Do not interfere with an army that is returning home."

Who is it who is supposed to have “surrendered” here? There is no argument made of any victory by the United States—again, no argument about any strategic success. To my ear, at least, this sounds like the speech of a defeated commander, not one who is making a claim of any victory.

"Our troops are the steel in our ship of state"-- Best line in the speech, but I do wish our diplomacy were as strong.

Just stylistically, I think there's been a deterioration in the quality of Obama's speeches -- the literary quality.

There's a lot of phrases here that you're not quite sure what they meant: "We must give our children the education they deserve; we must jump start industries; we must unleash innovation; our troops are the steel in our ship of state."

These are normal political metaphors, but they're not the fresh, high literary quality that I think Obama had a year or two ago.

Not his best day, but not his worst either.