The speech

I study presidential rhetoric. This means I often have to justify my existence by explaining why presidential rhetoric matters, not infrequently framed in the question "is anyone listening?"

My favorite conservative Gen X New York Times columnist, Ross Douthat, challenged the significance of presidential rhetoric by suggesting that what Obama said about the next steps in Afghanistan is less important than the military strategy in the reason.

I've had to answer to tough critiques of presidential rhetoric, but that's just not a fair standard. Of course military strategy will ultimately determine the course of events in Afghanistan. But presidential rhetoric may play a crucial role in determining the context of that strategy, by virtue of its capacity to influence politics and public opinion.

Strategy is important, but resources are important as well. Those resources are controlled by Congress. Congressional Democrats are increasingly skeptical of devoting resources to the war, some for ideological reasons, but many also for political reasons. Public opinion on these military involvements seems to have soured, as people realize once again that wars are expensive and horrifying.

Wars are expensive and horrifying. And yet we began two of them under the Bush administration, in part because of the way that administration framed potential conflicts and linked them to salient issues, ideas and ways of looking at the world. Both wars initially enjoyed widespread bipartisan support. But the increasing complexity and apparent duplicity of the Iraq war eroded public trust in the logic of both conflicts - in the logic of a large-scale military response to the 9-11 attacks, particularly as the memory of those attacks faded and their salience, for many people, was replaced by concerns about the economy.

To keep costly and horrifying military involvements politically viable, someone needs to remind us that the consequences of non-involvement could be even more costly, and more horrifying. The president is well-poised to do this, and to offer fresh and sound logic to justify deeper involvement. At worst, this is manipulation. At best, it can be a call to civic engagement and sacrifice for national security. Under any circumstances, it is irresponsible to underestimate the need for rhetorical leadership when the tide of popular politics can influence the course and outcome of war.

Up next: so did the speech achieve this goal?