British Troops Go Home

after an embarrassing failure in Iraq. An interesting article in the Sunday Times says in part:

It raises questions about the stamina of our nation and the resolve of our political class. It is an uncomfortable conclusion that Britain, with nuclear weapons, cruise missiles, aircraft carriers and the latest generation of fighter-bombers, is incapable of securing a medium-size conurbation. Making Basra safe was an essential part of the overall strategy; having committed ourselves to our allies we let them down.

The extent of Britain’s fiasco has been masked by the media’s relief that we are at last leaving Iraq. Those who have been urging Britain to quit are not in a strong position to criticise the government’s lack of staying power. Reporting of Basra has mainly focused on British casualties and the prospect for withdrawal. The British media and public have shown scant regard for our failure to protect Iraqis, so the British nation, not just its government, has attracted distrust. We should reflect on what sort of country we have become. We may enjoy patronising Americans but they demonstrate a fibre that we now lack.

ADDED: Mark Steyn comments on the above linked article:

The snapshots of the post-9/11 era are not attractive: the failures in Basra, the Brit prisoners in Iran, and Her Majesty's subjects turning up on the other team's side everywhere from Kandahar to Bombay to the London Tube. The question is whether a nation that's "lost the stomach for a fight" has also lost its survival instinct.

Guess Who Said This

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we’re acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

Hint: not George W. Bush

What Was Fast

Wow! The NYT is now trying to give Obama credit for success in Iraq. Their cynicism knows no bounds. Obama, as late as the primaries earlier this year was promoting immediate withdrawal of the troops. He did not even acknowledge the efficacy of the surge until well into the summer. Congress famously declared the war lost over and over, and tried repeatedly to withhold funds in order to make prosecuting the war impossible. Fair enough. They did what they thought was right.

But now THEY should get credit for winning the war? I don't freaking think so.

The Iraq War Is Over

Via Michael Yon who has been embedded with the forces in Iraq for a number of years and who wrote the book "Moment Of Truth In Iraq." He has been covering the war on terror since 2004 and has been a window into what is actually happening that the main media outlets did not provide.

Obama Should Give Thanks - For Bush

Jules Crittenden sums up the gifts Obama inherits from the Bush Administration. The conclusion:

George W. Bush did not solve all the problems of the world's most troubled and dangerous region. But, for all his shortcomings, he has moved them forward and established the United States as the dominant agent for change in the Middle East. Consider the mess Obama would be inheriting in the region if the Bush administration had just sat on its thumbs-Ahmadinejad's Iran with an even further advanced nuclear arms program, an aging Saddam installing one of his psychopathic sons in power or Iraq being torn apart in a genocidal nightmare. Imagine all the regimes of the region, unchastened and unimpressed by the U.S. exercise of power, looking for any weakness or advantage to exploit and quite possibly finding it in al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Bush has set conditions that could allow Obama, if he abandons the desire to be liked as the underlying principle of his foreign policy and sticks to the path the Bush administration has laid out, to preside over the greatest blossoming of liberal democracy and stability the Middle East has ever seen, and in all likelihood, to get the credit for it.

I think Obama's choice of Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State makes this possible.

Anti-War Groups Afraid To Criticize Obama

Interesting. I guess they're hoisted on their own petard:

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama's national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists -- key members of the coalition that propelled Obama to the White House -- fear he is drifting from the antiwar moorings of his once-longshot presidential candidacy. Obama has eased the rigid timetable he had set for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and he appears to be leaning toward the center in his candidates to fill key national security posts.

"There's so much Obama hero worship, we're having to walk this line where we can't directly criticize him," he said. "But we are expressing concern."

That's the problem with idealizing someone to this degree. It comes back to bite you in the ass. All over the internet there's wailing and gnashing of teeth about Joe Lieberman being welcomed back into the Democrat fold and Hillary Clinton being asked to be Secretary of State.

Of course, from my perspective, every time he breaks a promise it's good news. And particularly in this case, because the war is essentially over and a timetable for withdrawal is in place. For Obama to summarily withdraw at this point would be to endanger the progress that has been made.