THE PRESIDENT'S SPEECH – AT 11:54 P.M. ET:  There'll be no "Short Takes" tonight.  Aside from publishing The Angel's Corner, which has been sent out, I've spent the night watching Mr. Obama's speech and gauging the reaction.

On balance, it wasn't a bad speech.  The good news:  The president did actually declare ISIL, the Islamic State, "evil."  (Remember how the self-proclaimed sophisticates expressed outrage when George W. Bush used the same word?)  He also declared it a cancer.  He committed American air power and training personnel to the fight against ISIL, and made clear he was willing to take the fight to Syria, where ISIL is based. 

That's the good news.  Now the bad news:  The speech was given by Barack Obama.  The man has a history of half-measures and half-hearted measures, and of abandoning allies.  He is not trusted by America's traditional friends in the Mid east, starting with Israel, a country he never mentioned in his speech.  In the speech he stated, without equivocation, that his goal was to "destroy" ISIL.  He cautioned that it would take time.  But he must now be held to his own stated standard:  he must destroy ISIL.  Nothing less will be acceptable. 

I agree with David Bergen, who said that the first part of Obama's speech, which dealt entirely with ISIL, was fine.  The president laid out, in rather general terms, his campaign of air strikes, alliances, and training – including training of some elements of the Syrian opposition – and sounded almost tough.  But Bergen pointed out that the end of the speech, where Obama told us that all in America is well, that the economy is booming, that his administration is approaching perfection, was jarring in its effect.  It was Obama as politician, as campaigner.  When you're talking about committing American fighting men and women, that's what the speech should be about.  Nothing else.

Reaction to the speech was generally positive, with Republicans far more gracious than Democrats ever were after a Bush 43 speech.  For the most part, Republicans praised the president for finally stepping forward and taking some direct action against the ISIL threat – although he weirdly denied that ISIL was a Muslim organization.  Democrats were generally supportive, but guarded.  They were clearly aware that Obama's speech will be seen as a concession that his policies haven't worked, even though he claimed they had.  And Democrats must watch the left wing of their party, which is anti-military and anti any war America has a chance of winning. 

Now comes the execution of the policy.  One commentator – I believe it was Brit Hume – put it best when he wondered what would happen if things got rough, if Americans were killed, If the Iraqi ground force that we're depending on collapsed, if we had to go back in with infantry and armor.  Were Americans up for the fight?

The president clearly had his eye on the 2014 midterms.  He is aware that he's considered a drag on his party, in part because he's seen as weak in foreign policy.  He tried to sound firm – Newt Gingrich said it was the most American speech he's given – and there was about him the tone of a man chastened by real life, and willing to leave the faculty lounge.  But there was also the tone of a man who has little enthusiasm for military operations, and who refused to use the word "victory."  Which Obama will win?  I want to be pleasantly surprised.  I can't say I expect to be.

September 10, 2014