Tonight, President Obama addresses the nation about his plan for Afghanistan. Presidents are at their most presidential when talking to the country about foreign affairs, particularly war, and President Obama has an opportunity to shine tonight.

While Clark has elsewhere questioned the setting for the president’s remarks, I believe the US Military Academy at West Point will effectively underscore Mr. Obama’s message and allow him to appropriate for himself some of the confidence Americans have in our armed forces. The West Point venue will also re-align the president with the military – a relationship that has appeared to be on rocky ground throughout the deliberation phase.

Aside from the soft messages, what should the president’s remarks accomplish?

First, they need to articulate a plan. While the White House has been touting the thoroughness of the president’s war review, the idea has taken hold that Mr. Obama is really just indecisive. His remarks should include as much clear and direct language as possible to demonstrate that he has indeed made a decision and that he’s comfortable with it.

Policy experts and non-podium pundits will differ over details – troop levels, mission objectives, diplomatic sideshows – but most Americans won’t care. They don’t have time to think about the details. They just want to know that the president has and that he thinks his plan will work.

Second, the president’s remarks need to be clear about where we’re headed. President Obama may lay out some timed benchmarks of progress leading to withdrawal. But even more important is that the remarks indicate some specific goals, however the president defines them. We know why our people are fighting in a theoretical sense, but what will they accomplish in reality? What will a post-NATO Afghanistan look like – not a Pollyanna view, but a realistic idea of a good future?

The president should also be clear about his approach to terrorism. Few Americans (I think) expect us to be at this until every last radical fundamentalist is extinguished or defanged. Nor is it realistic to think that decapitating al Qaeda’s global leadership will be enough to end the terrorist threat (if it’s even possible). What is the point at which the United States is satisfied we’ve done enough to make it harder for terrorists to operate in Afghanistan and to make our country safer? The president should try to answer that question, or else he may leave people feeling more fatigued about the whole situation.

What should not be in the speech? More blame and whining. President Obama has shown an unattractive tendency to blame his predecessor for any difficult or sub-optimal choice he confronts. But that’s part of the job. George Bush didn’t really want to spend seven years fighting terrorists, but that’s what was thrust upon him. Being a leader means accepting your lot and moving forward. More talk about the awful burden he “inherited” or the “distraction” of Iraq will only make Mr. Obama look querulous and un-ready for the job he sought. It will also provoke more criticism of the strategy he unveils.

While I do think President Obama’s taken too long to reach this point, and that his delays have hurt his status as a decision-maker and war leader, tonight he has the opportunity to regain the appearance of decisiveness and potentially establish himself as the man who implemented the strategy that brought America’s response to 9/11 to its successful conclusion. Whatever his decision, critics on both the right and the left need to give it time to play out. He’ll have more breathing room if he delivers a strong speech tonight.