As far as the civil war is concerned, there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia… If America remains firm in its commitment to success in Iraq, success is very likely. The AQI and Shiite militias at present do not have the capacity to drive Iraq off course – unless both the U.S. and the Iraqi government make a number of serious mistakes. The most serious error would be to withdraw American forces too rapidly. That would strengthen the resolve of both al Qaeda and Iran to persevere in their efforts to disrupt the young Iraqi state and weaken the resolve of those Iraqis, particularly in the Iraqi Security Forces, who are betting their lives on continued American assistance. The blunt fact is this. In Iraq, al Qaeda is on the ropes, and the Shiite militias are badly off-balance. Now is exactly the time to continue the pressure to keep them from regaining their equilibrium. It need not, and probably will not, require large numbers of American casualties to keep this pressure on. But it will require a considerable number of American troops through 2009.
The Democrats, as personified by their current standard bearer, have steadfastly declined to see reality in Iraq. Until days ago, Barack Obama was declaring the surge an abject failure and muttering sweet nothings about an Iraqi civil war into the netroots’ collective ear. Since the facts on the ground no longer support that view, Obama and his surrogates have pivoted to declaring the battle in Iraq over while lusting for battle in Afghanistan so they can show their tough guy bona fides. The only thing the two divergent Obama views have in common is their refusal to deal with reality. The surge has been a success, but the gains have been hard won and are not irrevocable. If anyone would want to take a victory lap for the surge, one would think it would be the authors of this article who were among its architects. The Kagans and Keane have opted for a more sober and responsible approach. I’ll buy into the Hope thing just for a moment and hope against all available evidence that Barack Obama is capable of showing the same characteristics. 2) From the Washington Post, “The Iron Timetable” by the editors The Post takes the Democrats’ presumptuous nominee to the woodshed today. The last politician to take such abuse from the Post’s editorial board was Richard Nixon:
Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and “make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy.” However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq — before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance? “What’s missing in our debate,” Mr. Obama said yesterday, “is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq.” Indeed: The message that the Democrat sends is that he is ultimately indifferent to the war’s outcome — that Iraq “distracts us from every threat we face” and thus must be speedily evacuated regardless of the consequences. That’s an irrational and ahistorical way to view a country at the strategic center of the Middle East, with some of the world’s largest oil reserves. Whether or not the war was a mistake, Iraq’s future is a vital U.S. security interest. If he is elected president, Mr. Obama sooner or later will have to tailor his Iraq strategy to that reality.
The Post just tosses out the line that Obama is indifferent to victory, but the Obama campaign should actually respond to the charge. Does Obama care about winning in Iraq? If so, what would he be willing to do as president to ensure victory? Or at least pursue victory? In 2007, Obama explicitly said that a potential or actual genocide wouldn’t cause him to reconsider his urgency to surrender. I know, you’re stunned – like me you thought liberals were nice and cared about other people. The state of play right now is that Barack Obama still cares only about ending the war. And the Post shows undue optimism in stating that Obama will sooner or later have to tailor his strategy to the reality in Iraq. Really? Who’s going to make him? Harry Reid? 3) From the Wall Street Journal, “Prisoner Swap Signals Hezbollah’s Clout” by Cam Simpson and Farnaz Fassihi Behold the horror of going wobbly. Read it and weep.
In a deal brokered by the United Nations, Israel agreed to hand over all five Lebanese prisoners currently held in Israel. The men are expected to be flown Wednesday to Beirut after crossing at Rosh Hanikra, an Israeli-Lebanon border post hewn into a cliff above the Mediterranean Sea. Mr. Kantar is Israel’s longest-held security-related prisoner and the Jewish state’s onetime poster boy for Arab terrorism. His attack on an Israeli coastal village in 1979 left five Israelis dead, including two young children. For many anti-Israeli Arabs, however, Mr. Kantar represents the face of resistance. Hezbollah will also receive the remains of all fighters from Lebanon killed and buried in Israel during the two countries’ 60 years of conflict. Workers recently undertook exhumations from nearly 200 numbered graves in a potter’s field the Jewish state maintains for enemy fighters. A hero’s welcome awaits the five prisoners in Beirut. They will be greeted there by a lineup of officials, and then taken to the Shiite suburb of Dahya for a rally. Celebrations aren’t expected in Israel unless one or both of the Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah and promised in the exchange turn up alive. After their July 12, 2006, capture, forensic evidence at the scene suggested the two — Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev — had been killed or seriously wounded in the Hezbollah raid. Three other Israeli soldiers died in the attack.
The deal has since gone down. Both of the Israeli soldiers came home in coffins. Meanwhile, what of this Mr. Kantar who returned to freedom today promising to resume the fight against Israel?
On April 22, 1979, Mr. Kantar, then 16 years old, and four other militants launched a motorized rubber raft from Lebanon and landed a few miles south — at the northern Israeli coastal town of Nahariya, which is visible from the cliff-top border post the freed Lebanese prisoners will cross Wednesday. Some supporters of Mr. Kantar have since said the sole aim of the raid was to seize Israelis who could be ransomed to win the release of Arab prisoners. The mission quickly turned bloody. The militants killed an Israeli policeman who spotted them. Then they stormed into an apartment building and seized a 28-year-old man and his 4-year-old daughter. Mr. Kantar was later convicted of brutally killing them both, along with the policeman. The man’s wife, hiding in the apartment, accidentally smothered her 2-year-old daughter as she tried to muffle the girl’s cries. Another Israeli policeman was killed in a gun battle that led to Mr. Kantar’s capture.
The Journal oddly sanitizes Mr. Kantar’s heroics (for that is how Hezbollah views his actions). He killed the four year-old’s father in front of her, and then shattered her skull. The worst part? 61% of the Israeli public approves of the deal, and Israel’s pathetic Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will actually purchase a little bit of popularity from the exchange. At least until the results of showing such weakness become manifest. 4) From the New York Times, “May We Mock, Barack?” by Maureen Dowd Yes, I’m recommending a Maureen Dowd column. I know that will suggest the End Times to some readers, but it’s actually quite entertaining:
If Obama keeps being stingy with his quips and smiles, and if the dominant perception of him is that you can’t make jokes about him, it might infect his campaign with an airless quality. His humorlessness could spark humor. On Tuesday, Andy Borowitz satirized on that subject. He said that Obama, sympathetic to comics’ attempts to find jokes to make about him, had put out a list of official ones, including this: “A traveling salesman knocks on the door of a farmhouse, and much to his surprise, Barack Obama answers the door. The salesman says, ‘I was expecting the farmer’s daughter.’ Barack Obama replies, ‘She’s not here. The farm was foreclosed on because of subprime loans that are making a mockery of the American dream.’ ”
The fact that Maureen Dowd has taken notice means the meme of Obama as a humorless scold is beginning to gain traction. In another month, Obama may come to resemble an elongated Michael Dukakis minus the rapier wit and the dead-on Carol Channing impersonation. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Obama is as humorless as he appears. If so, should it matter? One could argue that it shouldn’t, and that if we wanted an Entertainer-in-Chief we could just elect Mike Huckabee president-for-life and be done with it. But central to Obama’s appeal is his ability to inspire. Aloofness, coldness and arrogance – three traits Obama’s been showing in abundance in recent days – are not known for their ability to inspire. 5) From the Wall Street Journal, “Why Airlines Lost Billions, and What Those Losses Mean for Passengers” by Scott McCartney Delta and American both posted disastrous numbers for the second quarter today. While the tendency might be to dance on the airlines’ graves, McCartney points out that these numbers likely mean airline service will be getting even worse and even more expensive. That’s for the short term, and I won’t allow such momentary inconveniences to dilute my joy over the airlines’ difficulties. With a couple of exceptions (Jetblue and Southwest leap to mind), the entire industry treats its customers like necessary evils. At best. What other business goes to such lengths to let 90% of its customers (the ones who fly coach) know they’re relegated to second class citizenship? If the airlines didn’t consider their customers a captive audience, they would exercise some discretion in this regard. Worse still, the trod upon customers are left footing the bill for the oligopoly’s adoption of untenable business models. If ever an industry cried out for the creative destruction that capitalism can bring, it’s the modern airline industry. I say bring it on. BONUS: New JibJab!
