As the U.S. tries to tentatively declare victory and head home, I believe what I came to believe back 2003, namely that Iraq will be better off in the end, but will remain a mess for the foreseeable future. And the price the U.S. paid, in lives, in money, in national prestige is one we would not have paid had we known the cost going in. And after all this, I have come to believe two things about the war right now: Iraq is not ready for U.S. troops to leave. And it is time for us to go.

The Rolling Stone reporter has speculated Gen. Stanley McChrystal exhibited “a sort of natural kind of recklessness.” I have another theory: Gen. McChrystal might have been under the misimpression Hastings would protect him, in return for the great access and candor.

It’s hard to see how the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan can keep his job, given his admitted “poor judgment” in publicly airing his misgivings about his dealings with President Obama and members of his administration, while fostering a command climate in which his “profane, irreverent aides” as the Washington Post described them, mocked Vice President Joe Biden.

Here’s what the president said last night: “We will fight this … with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes.” That’s a lot different from the stated strategy for Afghanistan which is more like: “We will fight this with as much as we can spare, for a least another year.”

President Barack Obama’s six-hour foray into Kabul — arriving at dusk and leaving before dawn — makes one wonder if he’s still in the dark about Afghanistan.

The nation’s top military advisors are not the Joint CHEERLEADERS of Staff. It is not their role to publicly applaud or deride the political policies of the civilian leadership. Their job is to salute smartly, and carry out their orders.

Skeptics of missile defense should take note of Russia’s paranoia about the U.S. missile defense in Europe.

Editor’s Note: Katie Gallagher is a junior majoring in print journalism at the University of Maryland’s Philip Merrill College of Journalism. This article is the second of a series offering a perspective on military issues from the college perspective.

Bob Woodard says the sources (more than one) who leaked him the McChrystal report had “pretty pure” motives and were not trying to “box in” President Obama. He also insists that after the initial anger some in the White House told him the publication “did them a favor.” And that the scoop was in some respects as significant as the landmark Pentagon Papers case in 1971.

The strategy President Obama has settled on, even with its limitations and reservations, may be the best of bad options. But the speech fell short of making the case. Bottom line: Right strategy, wrong message.