The Case of the Vanishing Iraq Policy Statement.

A few days ago, we mentioned the rather detailed plan that was unveiled for Iraq at Change.gov, Mr. Obama's official transition site. That page has now been removed. Amazing what a dose of reality (courtesy a presidential briefing) can bring about.

Note Bene: Wizbang reports that most of the lofty policy plans from the Obama campaign have now vanished from Change.gov. This risks making Mr. Soros angry. You don't want to make Mr. Soros angry.

No doubt over-zealous Obamites thought it was only reasonable to transcribe the campaign bombast to the honest-to-goodness we're-on-the-hook-for-this-now transition plans.

Some Restraint, Please!

We recognize that Mr. Obama is the President-Elect, and will become the new President in a few months. But that does not mean it's prudent nor tactful to establish a parallel government during the transition, complete with policy declarations. Yet, he has already done so, with pronouncements on issues that are not particularly supportive of the real United States Government.

The Parallel United States Government has articulated, in rather clear language, exactly what will transpire in Iraq in the first year: we will be skulking out, apparently without little realistic regard to the conditions on the ground:

...Immediately upon taking office, Obama will give his Secretary of Defense and military commanders a new mission in Iraq: ending the war. The removal of our troops will be responsible and phased, directed by military commanders on the ground and done in consultation with the Iraqi government. Military experts believe we can safely redeploy combat brigades from Iraq at a pace of 1 to 2 brigades a month that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 – more than 7 years after the war began. Under the Obama-Biden plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel. They will not build permanent bases in Iraq, but will continue efforts to train and support the Iraqi security forces as long as Iraqi leaders move toward political reconciliation and away from sectarianism...

There is also planned for plenty of opportunity for Iran and Syria to provide their constructive inputs.

Yes, elections have consequences, one of which is inheriting the responsibility supporting the present government while you plan for the new government. The early behavior of the "shadow government" does not exhibit this responsibility.

Obama, MoveOn, and Iraq.

Here is the audio of an April 2007 Q&A session on Iraq between members of MoveOn.org and Senator Obama. Its salient content: (i) Obama's declaration of the "failure" of the then-recent surge in Iraq, (ii) his insistance that US withdrawl from Iraq begin immediately (to be completed with a year), (iii) advocacy for a multilateral negotiations on the fate of Iraq between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias, Iran, and Syria, and (iv) appreciation and enthusiasm for MoveOn.org, the folks that brought you the infamous "General Betray Us" ad.

MoveOn endorsed Mr. Obama for the Presidency of the United States in early 2008 with 70% of its voting membership.

Lest we forget.

With Success, Silence.

It is quite astounding how the TV press coverage of Iraq has dropped off; it's almost as if the war does not exist. Kudos to the New York Times and the Washington Post for their continued extensive coverage of Iraq. From a recent report from the Times as General Petraeus prepares to leave Iraq:

The arrival of the 30,000 extra soldiers, deployed to Baghdad’s neighborhoods around the clock, allowed the Americans to exploit a series of momentous events that had begun to unfold at roughly the same time: the splintering of Moktada al-Sadr’s militia, the Mahdi Army; the growing competence of the Iraqi Army; and most important, the about-face by leaders of the country’s Sunni minority, who suddenly stopped opposing the Americans and joined with them against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other local extremist groups.

The surge, clearly, has worked, at least for now: violence, measured in the number of attacks against Americans and Iraqis each week, has dropped by 80 percent in the country since early 2007, according to figures the general provided. Civilian deaths, which peaked at more than 100 a day in late 2006, have also plunged. Car and suicide bombings, which stoked sectarian violence, have fallen from a total of 130 in March 2007 to fewer than 40 last month. In July, fewer Americans were killed in Iraq — 13 — than in any month since the war began.

The result, now visible in the streets, is a calm unlike any the country has seen since the American invasion toppled Saddam Hussein in April 2003. The signs — Iraqi families flooding into parks at sundown, merchants throwing open long-shuttered shops — are stunning to anyone who witnessed the country’s implosion in 2005 and 2006.

However, TV is the manner by which most Americans get their news, and relative silence on Iraq by the MSM networks when the violence has dropped so dramatically will produce a dated and skewed view of Iraq in advance of the November election.

A Little Different in the Details...

The WaPo suggests that Mr. Obama's description of his strategic vision for the GWOT is "eccentric", and reveals some very big differences in what Mr. O's entourage claimed to be agreement with his 16-month deadline for troop withdrawl and the wishes of the Iraqi politicians and American military commanders.

Obama's Cynical Iraq Ploy.

Barack Obama now claims to be "refining" his position on Iraq, causing the Hard Left to void their bowels. He gained their rabid support because of his virulent anti-war stand, with an effective pledge to unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw US forces from Iraq within sixteen months...a "nuance-free" position. This was the issue with which he snatched the Democrat nomination from Hillary.

The Hard Left has nothing to fear: Obama's "refined" Iraq position is much more likely than not to be bait for sane Democrats and Independents to think that he's not such a delusional guy on Iraq. Obama was born and raised into the Hard Left, has made his national political bones with an extremely radical leftist view of Iraq, the War on Islamofacism, foreign policy, wealth redistribution, nationalization of health care, etc. As to the Radical Agenda, he is a True Believer. Once in power, he will throw the "refined" stand on Iraq under the bus. When he does so, he will no doubt give a very eloquent speech that will make Chris Matthews and Keith Obermann weep. And moderate Dems will be left holding guaranteed leases to the Brooklyn Bridge, and we can all contemplate the loss of thousands of brave Americans for nothing.

We fear that too many of our fellow Americans will be snookered by this fellow.

If it Quacks like Uranium...

Just so there is no misunderstandings nor disavowals: Iraq did have nuclear material, 550 metric tons of "yellowcake" uranium, that is now being removed and sent to Canada. To us that is a substantial component of a WMD program. Why wasn't this fact mentioned a few years ago when the various Iraq review reports were being advertised as refuting the existance of a serious WMD program?

A Solemn Read.

Our workday commute now includes the audio adaptation of Tom Ricks' "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq". Ricks attempts a comprehensive indictment of the Bush administration, from deliberate deception in the case for war to the lack of planning of "Phase Four", establishing a functional Post-Saddam Iraq. On the first point, Ricks is not persuasive, but on the latter he successfully documents what must be considered an A-1 SNAFU by the Rumsfeld Pentagon. John McCain frequently mentions this book while on the stump, and it supports his view that Petraeus' approach in Iraq is a necessary component of success. Necessary, but not sufficient, for ultimately it is the emerging political leadership in Iraq that will win the peace or lose it to a power darker than Saddam. And the Democrats input on this critical issue is as valuable as a one-armed cymbals player.

Remember Tet.

John McCain embraced the "surge" in Iraq, and has benefitted politically from its success. However, the Islamofascists may not want to chance a McCain presidency (they have a guaranteed victory in 2010 with a Clinton or Obama presidency), and certainly appreciate the staggering punch dealt to American public opinion by the Tet Offensive in Vietnam during late January 1968. Let's keep our right guard up in the coming months to protect against such a jab.

So Glib and Irresponsible.

Ann Coulter has followed up her much-trumpeted "support" for Hillary Clinton in the case of McCain's GOP nomination with a column detailing McCain's heresies that compels her realignment. It's the standard stuff: Gang of 14, "pro-amnesty", McCain-Feingold, etc.

Notably absent: Iraq, except for a terse four-word dismissal.

Let's be perfectly clear about where the Dems stand on Iraq: both Clinton and Obama have stated that most if not all of American forces will be out of Iraq by 2010 if either of them were to become president. In fact, during the last Dem debate Clinton and Obama discussed the need to evacuate and assist those Iraqis that had been so foolish to think that the United States had been committed to securing a stable, safe, and democratic Iraq. Think of human beings clinging to the undercarriage of helicopters atop the US Embassy.

Such tunnel-vision by Coulter is intellectual dishonesty, which one thought she detested. Shame on her for it, and her apparent little regard that she has for the sacrifice that the US has made in Iraq and for the Iraqis who have their pledged their Lives, their Fortunes and their sacred Honor for their country.

Evil Incarnate.

Two bomb blasts shattered the peace of a sunny day in Bagdhad, killing scores of people - many children - who were visiting streetside petstores. Mr. Moore's "Freedom Fighters" may have employed two mentally retarded women as human bombs in the attacks. This is the nature of our enemy - knowing no limit to the evil they will commit in pursuit of their objectives. We cannot leave the people of Iraq to the vengence of these barbarians.

Edwards' Goes Way Left on Iraq.

John Edwards now thinks its wrong to provide effective training for Iraqi forces.

How Is Iraq Faring?

General Petraeus provides an end of year summary of conditions in Iraq: improved, but tenuous. The New York Times also provides a summary of conditions around Bagdhad - quite informative (from Sept 2007). Another Op-Ed provides an end of year update. Prognosis, guardedly optimistic, but now Iraqi politics must step up to the task.

A Soldier Comes Home.

Staff Sargeant William Quinn has a very thoughtful essay on the disconnect between his experiences in Bagdhad and those of his fellow students at Georgetown.

Progress in Iraq.

One notices the lack of news on Iraq, other than the Blackwater situation. The WaPo editors have noticed, too:

NEWS COVERAGE and debate about Iraq during the past couple of weeks have centered on the alleged abuses of private security firms like Blackwater USA. Getting such firms into a legal regime is vital, as we've said. But meanwhile, some seemingly important facts about the main subject of discussion last month -- whether there has been a decrease in violence in Iraq -- have gotten relatively little attention. A congressional study and several news stories in September questioned reports by the U.S. military that casualties were down. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton(D-N.Y.), challenging the testimony of Gen. David H. Petraeus, asserted that "civilian deaths have risen" during this year's surge of American forces.

A month later, there isn't much room for such debate, at least about the latest figures. In September, Iraqi civilian deaths were down 52 percent from August and 77 percent from September 2006, according to the Web site icasualties.org. The Iraqi Health Ministry and the Associated Press reported similar results. U.S. soldiers killed in action numbered 43 -- down 43 percent from August and 64 percent from May, which had the highest monthly figure so far this year. The American combat death total was the lowest since July 2006 and was one of the five lowest monthly counts since the insurgency in Iraq took off in April 2004...

CNN has now picked up on this, too; Anderson Cooper 360 has reported on this, as well as the significant weakening of Al Queda in Iraq (as reported by the WaPo).

To State It Succinctly...

You don't invite to one's university a representative of a government that supplies men and arms that are killing your country's soldiers. It's immoral and irresponsible.

General Petraeus Goes to Washington.

It must be wonderful to be convinced of the irrefutable and incontrovertable rightness of one's beliefs. It allows one complete license to smear and besmirch the reputation of people who have devoted their lives to the protection of the people of the United States and her Constitution. Such must be the case with the "citizens" at MoveOn.org. When the ends justify the means it brings such a feeling of holiness to what would otherwise be regarded as repugnant and despicable character assassination. What difference does it really make if you call a distinguished and devoted warrior a traitor? If it serves "the cause", then it's actually a sacrament to do just that.

MoveOn ran this ad regarding Gen. Petraeus in the New York Times today. It reminded us of a flyer that was passed out by another group of True Believers to a Dallas, Texas crowd some forty-four years ago, as they awaited the passing motorcade of their President:


Thanks, MoveOn.org, for elevating the discourse on the Iraq War to such ethereal levels. You, too, may want to thank them personally at their comments page.

The Senate's All-Nighter.


Last night's discussion featured some eloquence advocating defeat of the Levin-Reid Amendment, most notably McCain and Lieberman. Supporters of the amendment appear to have no substantial reply to the question "then what happens?" after a scheduled withdrawl.


The discussion pales in comparison to previous debates in the Senate (see figure).

Another Opinon about Iraq.

Rick Lynch, the commanding general of the historic Third Infantry Division, talks about the progress on the ground.

Newt Spells it Out.