The feds have charged two former Blackwater guards with second degree murder and attempted murder in the Eastern District of Virginia.

They are Justin Cannon, 27, and Chris Drotleff, 29. Both are in custody. The charges arise from a shooting in Kabul in which two Afghans were killed.

Both men have said in recent interviews with The Associated Press that they were justified in opening fire on a car that caused an accident in front of their vehicle, then turned and sped toward them after they got out to help.

Update: 1/1/10: More confirmation here.

As I speculated here, new reports show the suicide bomber who killed 8 CIA agents yesterday at a U.S. intelligence post in Afghanistan, was a person being groomed to be an informant. He had been invited onto the base, and although he had never been there before, he wasn't searched. As to why he was invited on to the base:

An experienced Central Intelligence Agency debriefer came from Kabul for the meeting, suggesting that the purpose was to gain intelligence, the official said.

Among the seven CIA officials killed was the female base chief, a mother of three. While some reports say the attack happened in the gym, others says it happened as he was getting out of a car. Maybe she walked up to the car to greet the would-be informant and he blew himself up as he was getting out.

The Taliban, which has taken credit for the attack, says the bomber was posing as an Afghan officer. So the CIA thought they had flipped the guy, but he was playing them. This story is still developing.

The Taliban has reacted strongly to President Obama's pledge of more troops for Afghanistan. From one of its commanders:

"Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan and that means more Americans will die. With just a handful of resources we can cause them even more casualties and deaths."

Where's the exit strategy? We will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan after the additions. Obama says we will begin withdrawal in 2011. That's too nebulous. When will we be finished?

Where's the clarity? Training Afghan troops to turn the war over to them didn't work too well in Iraq. How will sending more troops strengthen Afghan institutions or create a sustainable economy?

David Sirota asks, Is this hope or change? This is Obama's war now. He owns it. [More...]

I did not see it and I have seen no reaction to it. Here is the speech. Here are my reactions:

The President said "I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan -- the nature of our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion." I think the speech should be judged on how well it fulfilled those three stated objectives. More . .

Unfortunately, I won't be able to live blog the President's speech. (Can't speak for Jeralyn.) My full reactions won't come until tomorrow.

However, the NYTimes has some excerpts:

Glenn Greenwald writes:

In order to prepare Americans for Obama's Afghanistan escalation speech tonight at West Point (at least he's not wearing a fighter pilot costume), White House officials have been dispatched to speak to the media (anonymously, of course) to preview all of the new and exciting aspects of the President's plan. [. . .] [A]nyone with a memory that extends back for more than a few weeks, all of this seems anything but new. In December, 2007, George Bush delivered a speech to the nation announcing his escalation in Iraq -- that one only 20,000 troops, compared to the 30,000-40,000 Obama has ordered for Afghanistan. [. . .] I'm not comparing the Iraq and Afghan escalations: only the rhetoric used to justify them.

(Emphasis supplied.) I think the end of the quote is the rub. Afghanistan is not Iraq. And indeed, that may make Bush's policy defensible and Obama's indefensible. I do not think so. I think the reverse. I understand Glenn's point - do not accept at face value the justifications presented by the government - any government. But let's evaluate the arguments on the merits. Tonight we'll all listen to President Obama and then we can argue the merits.

Speaking for me only

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has a new report on Afghanistan.

The report states categorically that bin Laden was hiding in Tora Bora when the U.S. had the means to mount a rapid assault with several thousand troops at least. It says that a review of existing literature, unclassified government records and interviews with central participants "removes any lingering doubts and makes it clear that Osama bin Laden was within our grasp at Tora Bora."

The blame for blowing the chance to get bin Laden -- and for the current state of the war in Afghanistan -- is placed squarely on former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his top commander Tommy Franks.

The full report is here (pdf). [More...]

NYTimes:

President Obama said on Tuesday that he will announce his decision on how many more troops to send to Afghanistan next week, and that it is his intention to “finish the job” that began with the overthrow of the Taliban government in the fall of 2001.

As a longtime proponent of "finishing the job" in Afghanistan (and President Obama's positions on Afghanistan), I look forward to being joined by the Obama blogs in my position next week when President Obama announces he is sending in more troops to help "finish the job."

Speaking for me only

The report that President Obama had decided to send 40,000 more troops to Afghanistan is false, according to his national security adviser.

“Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false,” [National Security Adviser James] Jones said in a e-mailed statement today. “Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources.”

The AP reports the number will not be quite 40,000, as CBS reported. I bet it's close.

President Obama will be holding a war strategy meeting with top advisors today on whether to send more troops to Afghanistan.

One of the three helicopters that went down in Afghanistan killing 14 Americans included 3 DEA personnel. The helicopter was returning from a drug raid against a Taliban-controlled area tied to narcotics production.

Al Qaida, according to many experts cited in this Guardian oped today, is not in Afghanistan. There are strained relations between the two groups. Al Qaida, they say, is in Pakistan.

So we are fighting a drug war in Afghanistan. The Taliban does not have a goal of attacking the U.S. in the U.S. We need fewer, not more, troops in Afghanistan. And we should not risk more U.S. lives in the war on drugs abroad.

In the deadliest attack in more than a year, 8 U.S. soldiers and 2 Afghan troops have been killed in a attack by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"Coalition forces effectively repelled the attack and inflicted heavy enemy casualties while eight Isaf and two ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] members were killed," the Nato statement said.

The attack took place near Nuristan, a mountainous region. The Taliban says it has 35 police chiefs in custody and they will be taken before a council. There are 100,000 Nato and US forces in Afghanistan and their commander, Gen. McChrystal wants 40,000 more. So far, [More...]

A declassified version of a report by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal on the war in Afghanistan predicts the U.S. will lose the war there if more troops aren't provided. McChrystal is the top U.S. and Nato Commander in Afghanistan.

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

The Washington Post has published the report here. President Obama is studying the report. [More...]