This reaction fascinates me. You would think having a country that's no longer at war would be some kind of terrible tragedy, a major blow to our self-esteem. Oh noes, who will we be without the war?

The minions of the corporate media seem to be even more upset than the administration over the release of the Wikileaks documents, and I think I know why: They just can't bear the thought that they are no longer the gatekeepers.

WASHINGTON — The disclosure of a six-year archive of classified military documents increased pressure on President Obama to defend his military strategy as Congress prepares to deliberate financing of the Afghanistan war.

The disclosures, with their detailed account of a war faring even more poorly than two administrations had portrayed, landed at a crucial moment. Because of difficulties on the ground and mounting casualties in the war, the debate over the American presence in Afghanistan has begun earlier than expected. Inside the administration, more officials are privately questioning the policy.

"Earlier than expected"? Honey, some of us have been questioning this rotten war since Day One. And we've certainly been questioning it for the last year. You must not get out much.

In Congress, House leaders were rushing to hold a vote on a critical war-financing bill as early as Tuesday, fearing that the disclosures could stoke Democratic opposition to the measure. A Senate panel is also set to hold a hearing on Tuesday on Mr. Obama’s choice to head the military’s Central Command, Gen. James N. Mattis, who would oversee military operations in Afghanistan.

Administration officials acknowledged that the documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, will make it harder for Mr. Obama as he tries to hang on to public and Congressional support until the end of the year, when he has scheduled a review of the war effort.

“We don’t know how to react,” one frustrated administration official said on Monday. “This obviously puts Congress and the public in a bad mood.”

May I make a suggestion? Do that review now. What's the point of dithering on this?

Mr. Obama is facing a tough choice: he must either figure out a way to convince Congress and the American people that his war strategy remains on track and is seeing fruit — a harder sell given that the war is lagging — or move more quickly to a far more limited American presence.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but yesterday I saw something somewhere where a blogger was trying to discuss the Wikileaks report with someone he knew who was a Hill staffer. The staffer told him he didn't want to know -- because it would be harder to defend his Member's vote if he did.

That's the game, ladies and gentlemen. Politics above truth, winning over doing the right thing.

In which Andrew Bacevich schools David Frum on strategic defense policy issues. David Frum asks Dr. Bacevich how he would advise Obama (just around 11 minutes in):

What I would say is, Mr. President, you need to stop having meetings about Afghanistan. You need to start having meetings in which your national security team will help you identify what are the core principles that are informing US strategy that will deal with the problem of jihadism. And Mr. President, if you indeed give into this impulse to obsess about Afghanistan, ... then your administration will continue to have no strategy. You'll have a "Long War," so-called, he certainly going to run for re-election based on his record in Afghanistan, assuming that he does some variant of the options that are on the table, but he won't have a strategy. And I think that that's a tragedy, for the United States of America, at this stage of the game, to not have a strategy.

From his lips to Obama's ears. Highly recommended, if not only to watch Bacevich calmly and confidently destroy Frum, as Frum wriggles uncomfortably in his seat.

Matt Yglesias Ponders Bush's Disconnection from the Reality of Iraq:

TAPPED: September 2004 Archives: THE CEO PRESIDENT. Apparently, the president not only doesn't read the newspapers, he also doesn't get briefed by his top military commanders. What else to make of this?

QUESTION: Why haven't U.S. forces been able to capture or kill al-Zarqawi, who's blamed for much of the violence? And what's your answer to General John Abizaid's statement that, "I think we will need more troops than we currently have"?

BUSH: If that's what he says -- he was in my office this morning, he didn't say that to me. But if he were to say that, I'd listen to him. Just like I've said all along that when our commanders say that they need support, they'll get support, because we're going to succeed in this mission.

The first part of the question was how come we haven't found Zarqawi? We're looking for him. He hides. He's got an effective weapon and that is terror.

We can't find Abu al-Zarqawi because "he hides?" No wonder the president seems confused about whether or not he can win the war on terrorism. What was Bush expecting the terrorists to do -- turn themselves in? Besides, it's not as if Zarqawi's all that well hidden. He's in Falluja. We just can't get him because we don't control Falluja. And we don't control Falluja because Bush is manipulating the military strategy for political purposes. Besides that, we don't have enough troops. Which brings us to John Abizaid.

You can find coverage of Abizaid's remarks in newspapers and television networks throughout America. It's even in Canada. Has Bush seriously not heard about it? If Abizaid will tell the press he needs more troops, why won't he tell his commander-in-chief? Does Bush plan to ask Abizaid about it?

--Matthew Yglesias