One other returning finalist remained in the competition. Kavya Shivashankar, 12, of Olathe, Kan., stayed alive by spelling the agricultural term "Krummholz."

For comic relief, there was Easun Arunachalam, who has a habit of treating every word as if it were the strangest thing he's ever heard. The 11-year-old from La Crescenta, Calif., blurted "What?" when presented with the chemical compound "benzophenone." After asking the usual spate of questions -- definition, word origin, alternate pronunciations -- Easun spelled the word flawlessly.

Then there was Jahnavi Iyer, who pondered the medical term "solidungulate" until she finally asked, "Could I have an easier word, please?" . . . The 14-year-old from Enola, Pa., took a guess, nailed every letter, and trotted back to her seat with arms raised in celebration.

We don't do fear. Over the last 105 years in the saddle, we've seen wars, conflicts, depression, recession, resistance, and revolutions. But every time, this country has come out stronger than before. We've watched a thousand hand-wringing pundits disappear in our rearview mirror. Chrome and asphalt put distance between you and whatever the world can throw at you. Freedom and wind outlast hard times. And the rumble of an engine drowns out all the spin on the evening news. If 105 years have proved one thing, it's that fear sucks, and it doesn't last long. So screw it. Let's ride.

1. The Air Force says it would cost roughly the same amount to develop, manufacture and operate 179 next-generation tankers, regardless of whether they are based on the Boeing 767 or the Airbus A330. But the Airbus plane is 27% heavier than the Boeing plane, and burns over a ton more fuel per flight hour. With fuel prices headed for the upper stratosphere, how can both planes cost the same amount to build and operate over their lifetimes?

2. The Air Force says it would be equally risky to develop the Boeing tanker or the Airbus tanker -- after forcing Boeing to substantially increase the time and money required to develop its version. But Boeing proposed to build its tanker on the same assembly line where it has already constructed hundreds of the same airframe, whereas Airbus proposes to build its tanker at a plant and with a workforce that don't yet exist in Alabama. How can the risks be equal?

3. The Air Force says that a computerized simulation of how the competing tankers would function in an actual wartime scenario strongly favored the larger Airbus plane. But the simulation assumed longer runways, stronger asphalt and more parking space than actually exists at forward bases, and failed to consider the consequences of losing bases in wartime. How can such unrealistic assumptions be relevant to the selection of a next-generation tanker?

4. The Air Force says the Northrop-Airbus team received higher ratings on past performance than the Boeing team, based on a review of programs deemed similar to the future tanker. But Boeing built all 600 of the tankers in the current Air Force fleet, whereas Northrop and Airbus have never delivered a single tanker equipped with the refueling boom the Air Force requires. How can Northrop and Airbus have superior past performance?

The trap Obama must not be caught in is one of excessive pessimism. Conditions now favor expeditious withdrawal more than they did only a few months ago. But the manner of withdrawal, its pace, and its concomitant diplomacy now require a different cast, and may require an even different one next February and March. None of this means that this war was not a mistake; it does suggest it need not in the medium term be a catastrophe. Petraeus deserves the lion's share of the credit; luck and time and the self-defeating nihilism of the Jihadists have helped. But Bush and McCain equally merit points for pursuing the surge, even though the metrics pointed to failure. Obama needs to capitalize on these gains, not dismiss them.