Obama's speech leaves ample questions

I just finished watching Obama's speech, which overall was thorough, insightful and eloquent. He outlined his Afghanistan strategy and took responsibility for sending 30,000 additional troops in 2010 and 2011. I also liked how he tied Afghanistan to his overarching foreign policy. Nonetheless, his strategy raised several questions. First, Obama failed to address convincingly why an alternative strategy involving zero additional troops is not viable. Many critics have faulted current strategy, tactics and approaches and believe that the U.S. needs to deploy them better rather than send in more troops. Second, I am unsure whether Obama's strategy will pressure Karzai and Pakistan to be more accountable and involved in the war. If his timetable and emphasis on Pakistan are meant to send a message to those governments, how much would those leaders heed Obama? Third, the timetable is unrealistic. Sending in additional troops in 2010 and planning a withdrawal as early as mid-2011 is ambitious. Given the complexity of the situation and Obama's goals - counterinsurgency is a task of years, not months - a more flexible and far-off timetable would be better. Fourth, Obama failed to detail what he expects out of other allies, such as NATO members. Many of those governments face increased domestic pressure for withdrawing troops, and Obama should have given them some acknowledgment and outline for their continued role and need. Fifth and finally, he blurred military and political objectives without delineating the extent and limits of U.S. involvement. For example, he alluded to American involvement in Afghanistan's agricultural production - including, I presume illicit drugs - but in what capacity, military, economic or political? While a counterinsurgency strategy should emphasize nation-building, promising too much is desultory.