The comparison that the author draws half way through the article is exactly the turning point for the credibility of the author. Starting off as an interesting analysis of a political speech, it turns into a biased praise towards Trump, his "evolving" political ideas, and his approach in Afghanistan.

My favorite part of this clearly biased and fact-free article is the author lambasting those who would advocate pulling out of Afghanistan as having "no accountability for their foreign policy advice" -- as if there has been ANY accountability whatsoever for the trillions already spent on decades of perpetual war with no results other than the destruction of the middle east.

A person's personal opinion about a recent mind switch of Trumps. No real news here, and a good amount bias toward the president.

Blah, blah, blah. Not a great article or a good opinion.

A solid recitation of why the author holds the opinion that he does. Nothing inflammatory or political. Sources are generally good although I didn't like the link that simply went to an Amazon book instead of specific text that would support the position.

The author, Peter Feaver, makes large accusations as to the intent and meanings behind Trump's speech, and in particular, just one section of his speech. I'm appreciative of the links Peter provided to NYT and CSIS for additional information and context, but the author fell back to the age old tactic of blaming the prior president for their mistakes. Like Trump, Obama was also handed an ongoing war, but these situations are apples and oranges. To try and draw a comparison between the two is to further expose your own personal bias and lack of reliable sources to support your claims. I applaud the writing style of Peter, but the bias and opinion was blatant.

I selected Political Agenda because it is clear throughout the piece (and headline) that the author supports continued military involvement in Afghanistan. Although the author does not seem to be a cheerleader of Trump, he is a cheerleader for this particular policy. The major red flag I noticed was when author Peter Feaver stated, "Now it is time to correct one further mistake his predecessor made: Trump should make it clear to the American people that he, as commander-in-chief, owns the war and is committed to seeing his strategy through." It's true that Obama never exuded a gung-ho attitude towards the war in Afghanistan, but that is because he too spoke of pulling out on the campaign trail. It's worth pointing out that the war began under Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush.

Many good points and thoughtful arguments are made in this article but in the end it is an opinion piece. The beginning cites quotes and policies of the current president and during the last half speaks of what the former president's policy was in Afghanistan. The majority of the piece is interpretation of policy and quotes, of what is good and bad policy. The reader is lead down a path of thinking about what the right move is for America in Afghanistan. A more unbiased approach would be to at least list the pros and cons of different policies instead of picking one and comparing decisions made by presidents to it.