President Bush delivers his speech on Iraq
at the White House. Photograph: AP
As the thrust of George Bush's announcement had already leaked out before his televised speech last night - an extra 20,000 troops for Iraq - the importance of the president's address lay more in his tone.
Joe Gandelman, at the Moderate Voice, picked up on Mr Bush's note of contrition - the admission that mistakes had been made and responsibility lay with him.
"Up until now, there has been little admission from the president or the White House of mistakes. Question: will this boost what polls show is his lowered credibility with the American people, or will this make it worse?"
Gandelman agrees with the president that if the US pulls out, Iraq will become a slaughterhouse. However, he wonders - probably like most Americans - whether the revamped strategy will work:
"The question is whether his solution is an actual solution or will just increase the American bodycount while the larger Iraq security issue is either not solved or possibly not subject to solution."
Ariana Huffington, a long-term critic of Mr Bush, is not so impressed by the president's mea culpa and gives him both barrels:
"The reason why admitting mistakes is considered a good thing to do is the assumption that you'll stop making them - or at least stop making the same ones. But Bush is even incompetent at admitting his own incompetence. It's like an alcoholic admitting he's started drinking again, then announcing he plans to get back on the wagon by drinking even more. You should not get credit for admitting mistakes unless the admission is accompanied by an effort to stop making them."
Several commentators make the point that Mr Bush's strategy relies heavily on the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, in whom the US cannot be said to have full confidence - remember that leaked memo from Stephen Hadley, the US national security adviser?
John Dickerson at Slate, wonders about Mr Bush's grasp on reality in pinning so much hope on Mr Maliki.
"Bush was admirably blunt this time about his past mistakes and the slog ahead. But the confidence he expressed in the Iraqi government - without caveats, doubts, or warnings - seemed utterly fantastical."
To be fair to the US president, though, he did warn that if the Iraqi government did not follow through on its promises, it would lose the support of the American people.
It sounded like a thinly-disguised threat that, if Mr Maliki does not cut the mustard, the US will have to look to someone else.
The New York Times carries an incisive analysis of the friction between the Bush administration and the Iraqi government.
Sabrina Tavernise and John Burns point out that Iraq's Shia-dominated government did not really want a troop increase. They make this crucial point:
"As a long-oppressed majority, the Shiites have a deep-seated fear that the power they won at the polls, after centuries of subjugation by the Sunni minority, will be progressively whittled away as the Americans seek deals with the Sunnis that will help bring American troops home."
As for the US plan to embed more American officers among Iraqi units, they come up with this striking image:
"In effect, the advisers will serve as canaries in Mr Maliki's mine, ensuring the American command will get early notice if Iraqi operations threaten to abandon the equal pursuit of Sunni and Shiite extremists in favor of a more sectarian emphasis on going after Sunnis alone."
As the US prepares to escalate its military presence in Iraq, the Iraqi government has already launched heavy military operations in Baghdad, backed by US air power.
Mohammed, at Iraq the Model, writes:
"Actually, yesterday was the first time in months that I hear the familiar characteristic sound of the 30mm cannon that is usually mounted on A-10's and Apache helicopters. This particular weapon is an indication of the seriousness of the battles, even though was fired only a few times."
