All y’all can save your Peter Beinart hatred. The man gave me a job right out of college, promoted me twice and gave me tons of opportunities. I would probably not be here if not for him. So I remain loyal, as I will ever be.

That said, this Daily Beast piece from Peter misses the mark substantially. He argues that it’s a mistake for Obama to provide a timetable for ending the war, calling it “an effort to appease the doves in his party.” Why’s it a mistake? Because it’ll reduce American leverage, Peter argues: “After decades of anarchy and war, Afghans have learned that survival requires backing the side that’s likely to win.” Ultimately, Peter says, providing a timeline for concluding the war successfully is “all too clever by half.”

The Iraq experience is instructive in this regard. In 2006, the Bush administration doubled down militarily with the surge. Then, once America’s increased military commitment (along with other factors) had strengthened Iraq’s government, the Bushies appeased nationalist hostility by setting a timetable for withdrawal.

But Peter’s argument is cleverer than it is wise. For one thing, by most accounts that have leaked so far, the exit strategy that’s going to be in the speech will look like this, as an anonymous official told the NYT:

“It’s accurate to say that he will be more explicit about both goals and time frame than has been the case before and than has been part of the public discussion,” said a senior official, who requested anonymity to discuss the speech before it is delivered. “He wants to give a clear sense of both the time frame for action and how the war will eventually wind down.”

So not really a timetable — David Dayen finds this more problematic than I do — and more like a time horizon. Congratulations, Peter, you’ve won the day! More seriously, I will put money on the proposition that the ultimate exit of U.S. military forces is conditioned on the readiness of the Afghan Army and police. Basically, what Peter uses as a cudgel to contrast with his expectations of Obama’s Afghanistan approach.

More substantively still, Peter is conflating two different things: military commitment and political commitment. If we leave Afghanistan at some point and yank away our political commitment wholesale — meaning diplomatic engagement, economic ties, and regional sponsorship — then, yeah, the whole thing will fail. (And, in fairness, Obama can be justly criticized for an approach to Iraq that looks too much like that.) But if we take away our military commitment after beating the shit out of the Taliban and sustain that political commitment, then that looks like a sane and sustainable path to success. Contrariwise, if we have a primarily military relationship with Afghanistan without paying due regard to the development and governance and security root sources of Afghan active or passive support for the insurgency, then the mission is as hopeless as it is open-ended. And yet Peter doesn’t give any attention to that. He’s envisioning for a longer war without any regard for a successful one.

In fairness, that’s a mistake that pretty much everyone in Washington has made about Afghanistan since 2001. “Success” is instantiated as nothing more concrete than “keep fighting.” That’s an enormous error, and one that, with luck, Obama will correct tomorrow night.