McCain's Straight Talk Express Goes to Iraq

Captain Ed offers his analysis of John McCain's trip to Iraq (via Memeorandum):

John McCain took some time off of the campaign trail and hit the ground in Iraq this morning. The media calls it a “surprise visit”, but he had given indications that he would visit Iraq after he clinched the nomination in order to get a fresh assessment of the progress being made by General David Petraeus and the troops. He intends to meet with Iraqi leadership, who might get a glimpse of the McCain temper for their foot-dragging on reconciliation....

McCain’s visit will have at least one salutary effect — it will force news agencies to cover the drop in violence in Iraq yet again. As the news has gotten better from the effort, it has also become more rare and less prominently placed. For a day or two, newspapers will include the improvements seen from the surge, which McCain had demanded for three years before its eventual implementation.

Iraqi leaders have met with McCain before, but not as a presidential nominee. That may give McCain a little more leverage with Nouri al-Maliki and the other political leaders in the Iraqi central government. Before now, McCain’s criticisms of the Iraqi leadership had been moderated by his status as just another American legislator, albeit one with more clout than some of the other drop-in visitors to the Green Zone. Now that McCain may be the best friend they have left in the upcoming presidential election, they may take his suggestions on speeding up reconciliation efforts closer to heart.

Another point that the American media might make is that this is McCain’s eighth trip to Iraq. He has visited in bad times and while improvements were being made. How many trips has Barack Obama made to Iraq? How many meetings has he had with Iraqi leadership?

See also, Jeff Jacoby's essay on McCain today at the Boston Globe.

What Did Obama Know About Wright's Past Sermons?

By now it's very clear that Barack Obama's not being completely truthful about his knowledge of Jeremiah Wright's sermons.

A number of bloggers have provided some evidence that Obama's attended fire-and-hatred sermons at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (see, for example, Gateway Pundit, "BUSTED... Obama Knew Wright Was Wrong Last Year").

The mainstream media, to my disappointed, are behind the blogoshpere on this one, but the issue's not going to go away. We are appropriately, seeing some more smoking gun style coverage emerging, for example in Jake Tapper's piece from ABC News:

In his Friday night cable mea culpas on the incendiary comments made by his spiritual adviser Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., repeatedly said, "I wasn't in church during the time that these statement were made. I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally. Either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew, he always preached the social gospel. ... If I had heard them repeated, I would have quit. ... If I thought that was the repeated tenor of the church, then I wouldn’t feel comfortable there."

Obama told CNN that he "didn't know about all these statements. I knew about one or two of these statements that had been made. One or two statements would not lead me to distance myself from either my church or my pastor. ... If I had thought that was the tenor or tone on an ongoing basis, then yes, I don't think it would have been reflective of my values."

But according to a New York Times story from a year ago, the Obama campaign dis-invited Wright from delivering a public invocation at Obama's candidacy announcement.

“Fifteen minutes before Shabbos I get a call from Barack,” Wright told the Times. “One of his members had talked him into uninviting me."

In a phone call with Wright, Obama cited a Rolling Stone story, “The Radical Roots of Barack Obama," (the name of which has curiously been changed on the RS website) and told him, according to Wright, “You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we’ve decided is that it’s best for you not to be out there in public.”

That story included the following passage: "The Trinity United Church of Christ, the church that Barack Obama attends in Chicago, is at once vast and unprepossessing, a big structure a couple of blocks from the projects, in the long open sore of a ghetto on the city's far South Side. The church is a leftover vision from the Sixties of what a black nationalist future might look like. There's the testifying fervor of the black church, the Afrocentric Bible readings, even the odd dashiki. And there is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a sprawling, profane bear of a preacher, a kind of black ministerial institution, with his own radio shows and guest preaching gigs across the country. Wright takes the pulpit here one Sunday and solemnly, sonorously declares that he will recite 10 essential facts about the United States. 'Fact number one: We've got more black men in prison than there are in college,' he intones. 'Fact number two: Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!' There is thumping applause; Wright has a cadence and power that make Obama sound like John Kerry. Now the reverend begins to preach. 'We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. ... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. ... We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. ... We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!" The crowd whoops and amens as Wright builds to his climax: 'And. And. And! GAWD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS S***!'"

This was more than a year ago.

So ... what did Obama know then and what did he just all of a sudden learn?

I'm confident that as more information becomes available, and Obama starts looking increasingly more venal, the pressure on his campaign will mount for a major prime-time announcement clarifying all angles of the scandal. Anything short of that - which must include complete denunciations of Wright's church and all recent expressions of the campaign's anti-patriotic sentiment - and the Obama campaign will risk complete implosion and collapse.

See also my earlier post for some smoking gun evidence, "Obama Attended Wright's Hate Sermons."

Counterinsurgency Firepower in Iraq

Sunday's New York Times has a five-year symposium on the Iraq war. The compiliation includes nine brief articles, of which I've read about half so far. The Bush adminstration's not coming out looking so well, and I'm waiting to read Paul Bremer's contribution until morning.

In the meantime, I think Frederick Kagan addresses the most important point of the war: the shift to an aggressive and effective counterinsurgency strategy that may indeed prove to be the saving element of the entire enterprise:

FROM the moment the Bush administration took office, I argued against its apparent preference for high-tech, small-footprint wars, which continued a decade of movement in that direction by senior military leaders and civilian experts. In 2002, I questioned the common triumphalism about American operations in Afghanistan, and particularly the notion of applying the “Afghanistan model” of low-manpower, high-precision operations in Iraq. I supported the 2003 invasion despite misgivings about how it would be executed, and those misgivings proved accurate.

However, the most surprising phenomenon of the war has been the transformation of the United States military into the most discriminate and effective counterinsurgency force the world has ever seen, skillfully blending the most advanced technology with human interactions between soldiers and the Iraqi people. Precision-guided weapons allowed our soldiers and marines to minimize collateral damage while using our advantages in firepower to the full.

Once we pushed most of our combat forces into close interactions with the Iraqi people, the information they obtained ensured that the targets they hit were the right ones. Above all, the compassion and concern our soldiers have consistently shown to civilians and even to defeated and captured enemies have turned the tide of Iraqi opinion.

Within a year, our forces went from imminent defeat to creating the prospect of success, using a great deal of firepower, killing and capturing many enemies, but binding the local population to us at the same time. The intellectual framework came from Gens. David Petraeus and Ray Odierno and their advisers. But the deep understanding, skill and compassion that made it work came from service members and the many civilians who put their lives at risk for the benefit of their country and Iraq.

See also the new American Interest for another set of brief and varied essays on Iraq five years on.

Obama Attended Wright's Hate Sermons

Allahpundit at Hot Air is reporting that Barack Obama, despite his denials yesterday (here, here, and in the video below), attended at least one sermon in which Reverend Jeremiah Wright defiled the United States in hateful, oppositional language.

Hot Air links to this story from Jim Davis at Newsmax:

Presidential candidate Barack Obama preaches on the campaign trail that America needs a new consensus based on faith and bipartisanship, yet he continues to attend a controversial Chicago church whose pastor routinely refers to "white arrogance" and "the United States of White America."

In fact, Obama was in attendance at the church when these statements were made on July 22.
Obama has spoken and written of his special relationship with that pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.

The connection between the two goes back to Obama's days as a young community organizer in Chicago's South Side when he first met the charismatic Wright. Obama credited Wright with converting him, then a religious skeptic, to Christianity.

Recall yesterday Talking Points Memo asked: "Is Wright a "Death Blow" to Obama?" Not only that, remember Noam Scheiber's ruminations on the gravity of Obama's relationship to Wright:

How plausible it is that Obama wouldn't have known about Wright's, er, greatest hits. Obama strongly implies he didn't know his pastor had a habit of giving nutty sermons up until the outset of his presidential campaign. Is that believable? Is there any way to disprove it? If the answers are "yes" and "no" respectively, then he'll weather this. If not, it could get uncomfortable.

Well, I'd say things should be getting particularly uncomfortable right now, especially if the latest information on Obama's 2007 church attendance gets widespread play in the major media.

Note how The Autonomist summarizes things:

Barack Obama has attended Wright's sermons for over twenty years. By his own admission, Obama consults with Wright before making any "bold political decisions." Obama calls Wright his "spiritual advisor." He calls Wright one of his prime mentors. Obama got the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," from a Wright sermon of the same name. He says that Wright was extremely important in shaping his life and his views. Obama and his wife were married by Rev. Wright. Reverend Wright baptized Obama's daughters. Barack Obama donated over $20,000 to Wright's church in 2006. He continues attending services in Wright's church.

And now we have information that possibly disproves Obama's key assertions on the scandal. I'd say that's getting pretty well into "death blow" territory.

The "Resilience" of Al Qaeda in Iraq

It was just last fall when both pundits and reporters were declaring the destruction of al Qaeda of Iraq.

Now we have Robert Burns of the Associated Press proclaiming al Qaeda's here to stay:

Al-Qaida is in Iraq to stay. It's not a conclusion the White House talks about much when denouncing the shadowy group, known as al-Qaida in Iraq, that used the U.S. invasion five years ago to develop into a major killer.

The militants are weakened, battered, perhaps even desperate, by most U.S. accounts. But far from being "routed," as Defense Secretary Robert Gates claimed last month, they're still there, still deadly active and likely to remain far into the future, military and other officials told The Associated Press.

Commanders and the other officials commented in a series of interviews and assessments discussing persistent violence in Iraq and intelligence judgments there and in the U.S.

Putting the squeeze on al-Qaida in Iraq was a primary objective of the revised U.S. military strategy that Gen. David Petraeus inherited when he became the top commander in Baghdad 13 months ago. The goal _ largely achieved _ was to minimize the group's ability to inflame sectarian violence, which at the time was so intense that some characterized Iraq as trapped in a civil war.

However, the militants are proving they can survive even the most suffocating U.S. military pressure.

"They are not to be underestimated. That's one thing I've seen over and over," said Col. John Charlton, commander of the Army's 1st Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division. His unit has fought al-Qaida for the past 14 months in a portion of Anbar province that includes the provincial capital of Ramadi.

"I'm always very amazed at their ability to adapt and find new vulnerabilities," Charlton said in a telephone interview this week from his headquarters outside of Ramadi. "They are very good at that," even though they have largely lost the support of local citizens.

The U.S. and Iraqi government intent is to chip away at al-Qaida until it is reduced to "almost a nonentity," Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno said March 4 shortly after finishing his tour as the No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq. "Unfortunately with these terrorist organizations, they will always be there at some level."

Demonstrating anew their remarkable staying power, the militants are thought to be behind attacks in recent days in Baghdad and beyond, including bombings in the capital March 7 that killed at least 68 people.

Now that U.S. troop reinforcements are beginning to go home, Petraeus and the Bush administration will be watching closely to see if American-trained Iraqi forces can keep up the pressure on al-Qaida.

Note, though, that military commanders are very careful about pumping up excessive expectations, as was the case this week with the reports from General David Petraeus and Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno.

Last fall, as well, commentators were careful to put the victory over al Qaeda in perspective. As Austin Bay remarked:

The evidence that al-Qaida has suffered a major strategic information defeat in Iraq continues to mount....

Is this victory in Iraq? No. But it suggests we've won a major battle with potentially global significance.

As for the Associated Press claim that al Qaeda in Iraq is "here to stay," recall Jules Crittenden's words this week:

The bizarre dynamic of American reporting in this war is that terrorists, no matter how hamstrung they may be, will always applauded for their resilience. The United States military and its allies, no matter how much progress they make in hamstringing terrorists, will always be fighting a rearguard action. The dramatic developments of the past year are typically dispensed with in boilerplate, often presented in a manner to indicate the U.S. military’s role was incidental.

Keep this last point in mind when reading forthcoming AP updates on al Qaeda's "resilience."

Daily Kos is Ugly and Destructive

Alegre, a diarist at Daily Kos, has denounced the deterioration of debate at the popular left-wing weblog as "ugly and destructive":

I’ve been posting at DailyKos for nearly 4 years now and started writing diaries in support of Hillary Clinton back in June of last year. Over the past few months I’ve noticed that things have become progressively more abusive toward my candidate and her supporters.

I’ve put up with the abuse and anger because I’ve always believed in what our on-line community has tried to accomplish in this world. No more. DailyKos is not the site it once was thanks to the abusive nature of certain members of our community.

I’ve decided to go on "strike" and will refrain from posting here as long as the administrators allow the more disruptive members of our community to trash Hillary Clinton and distort her record without any fear of consequence or retribution....

Instead, I will put my energy into posting at sites where my efforts aren’t routinely trashed, spammed and ridiculed by a handful of angry, petty and spiteful folks who clearly have too much time on their hands.

This is a strike - a walkout over unfair writing conditions at DailyKos. It does not mean that if conditions get better I won't "work" at DailyKos again. As a regular contributor to the discourse in our community, I would certainly hope to take part in the conversation at DailyKos again some day if we ever get to the point where we’re engaging each other in discussion rather than facing off in shouting matches. But not now. Writers need a safe place to reach out and exchange ideas, to communicate and challenge one another. DailyKos should be that place, but its tone, its essence has evolved into something ugly and destructive. Good writers can't survive in that kind of atmosphere. Democrats shouldn't have to put up with that from fellow Democrats.

Well, actually, I dont' think Americans should have to put up with that from anyone, Democrats or otherwise.

What's interesting about this is Alegre's framing of the controversy as a "job action," a move taken under the assumption that withholding labor will help to bring the administration to its senses, and change working conditions.

Alegre would have been better to have offered a more compete condemnation of Daily Kos, and to have quit posting at the nihilish hell-hole once for all. "Working conditions" will not get better, since there's nothing to improve. The whole mindset from Markos on down is that Kos is the Democratic Party's future - an affliction I've called "Daily Kos Syndrome." They think they know everything, and if Obama's the massiah, look out for anyone not toeing the radical line.

Every now and then some of the stuff that comes out at Daily Kos that is just unbelievable, absolutely beyond the pale.

A couple of weeks ago a Kos poster blamed the Times Square bombing on some extreme right-wing fearmongering conspiracy. In December, a Kos post from "Troutfishing" equated Christian evangelical military personnel as religious soldiers, no better than Palestinian suicide bombers.

Markos Moulitsas encourages it all, and that's what really is sick about the whole Kos enterprise (since Kos positions himself as a mainstream leader of the party, while his blogging minions mount the most unhinged attacks and smears imaginable).

What's happening now at Kos and the Alegre "strike" is the latest in the disastrous internecine bloodletting taking place at the base of the Democratic Party.

See my earlier post to that effect, "Crash: More on the Coming Democratic Train Wreck."

See also the additional analysis at Memeorandum.

Army Sergeant Testifies to Iraq Success, While Left Keeps Head in Sand

Anthony J. Diaz, a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army Reserve, argues at today's Washington Post that success in Iraq is real and undeniable, and political progress continues apace (via Memeorandum):

One often reads of the chaos plaguing Iraq. Yet the media accounts only infrequently seem to grasp the successes being achieved....

Late last year, I witnessed something inspirational in a rather unlikely setting: an ordinary neighborhood advisory council meeting. Attendance was the highest I had yet seen, with about 40 prominent locals present. The coalition was represented by our squadron commander, a few colonels from the embedded provincial reconstruction team and a political officer from the U.S. Embassy. Discussions ranged from the persistent lack of electricity to sewage problems to economic development. What struck me were the comments of some Sunni workers from the district's power station, who came to complain that the (mostly Shiite) Iraqi army had mistreated them and accused them of distorting the distribution of electric power, something over which these workers have little control. The men said they would strike until they received better treatment and pleaded with the council chairman, a Sunni, for help. That was an unlikely outcome, given the entrenched animosity between Shiites and Sunnis and the lack of substantive political reconciliation even at the highest levels of government here. But these men did something many Americans would take for granted: They voiced grievances and sought assistance. These are the seeds of representative government, citizens coming forth and demanding change from their representatives. Much work remains to be done, but we have clearly made a start.

Even the Iraqi army has taken a turn for the better here. Not long ago its troops were seen as an obstacle to reconciliation and were accused of arresting locals without evidence, only to request ransoms for their release. There are still occasional incidents of graft and abuse, but now Iraqi troops provide security and make efforts to build rapport with the populace.

Through continuous prodding, our squadron has influenced the local army contingent's understanding of the values of civil affairs. One particularly adept Iraqi captain has coordinated numerous efforts to hand out humanitarian assistance, organized medical and dental missions in local schools, provided security for deliveries of much-needed fuel, and even delivered wheelchairs himself.

There is still much left to be accomplished in Iraq. But the successes of the men and women serving in this once explosive area of Baghdad cannot be overstated. Sitting here in Adhamiyah, one thing is certain: The surge has worked.

That's the straight story from an Army reservist, but note as well what Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno said this week:

Explaining the reduction in violence and its stra­tegic significance has been the subject of much debate. It's tempting for those of us personally con­nected to the events to exaggerate the effects of the surge. By the same token, it's a gross oversimplifica­tion to say, as some commentators have, that the positive trends we're observing have come about because we paid off the Sunni insurgents or because Muqtada al-Sadr simply decided to announce a ceasefire. These assertions ignore the key variable in the equation--the Coalition's change in strategy and our employment of the surge forces.

That oversimplification - indeed, dissonance - is hard to resist. At the same time that more and more indicators of success become available, hard-left nihilist forces here at home continue to deny military and political progress in Iraq.

Newshoggers, while not on the top-tier of the America-bashing left blogosphere, nevertheless is relentless in its campaign of demonization and denial of America's emerging victory. See here:

I stick by my assessment that the US Surge is preordained to fail - that internal Iraqi dynamics dictate that as soon as the various factions have cause to fight instead of hold fire, they will do so and that none are invested in finding cause not to fight while the U.S. acts as buffer and protector to all. Which means that, eventually, there will be a fight in which the US can either take sides, be shot at by all sides or withdraw. Better to withdraw first.

Preordained?

Well, all of the military improvement this last year has discounted any predetermination of defeat. The Newshoggers' post is windy and confused, in any case, but the conclusion is what really matters: "Better to withdraw first"

There you have it, damn the consequences.

The U.S. will be in Iraq for a long time. Depending on what happens in the short-term politically, we're likely to have as many as 70-80 thousand service personnel in the theater a decade from now.

The odds of that happening will be better, of course, if this fall's election results in the accession to power of an administration not beholden to a nihilist, defeatist antiwar war fringe unable or unwilling objectively assess the dramatic turnaround of America's strategic fortunes in Iraq.

See also, Captian Ed, at Hot Air.

Congressional Ratings Sink Further

President Bush's job approval ratings have been in the doldrums for some time.

But public support for the Democratic Congress is even worse, and sinking, as a new Gallup survey shows:

The public's job approval ratings of President Bush and Congress continue to be very low from a historical perspective, with Bush's ratings in the low 30% range and Congress' in the low 20% range this year.

The latest Gallup Poll, conducted March 6-9, finds 32% of Americans approving of Bush and 21% approving of Congress.

Bush's job approval rating has been stable in recent months, ranging narrowly from 31% to 34% so far this year. His approval rating has been below 40% for 18 months, since September 2006. It has not been at the 50% level since May 2005, shortly after his second term in office began. Bush's low point in office was a 29% approval rating in July 2007. The all-time low for any president is a 22% approval rating for Harry Truman in a February 1952 Gallup Poll.

Congress' current approval rating is just 3 percentage points above the all-time low -- 18% readings from March 1992 and August 2007. Congress' approval rating has been below 30% since May 2007.

Despite Bush's low overall ratings, nearly three in four Republicans, 72%, still think he is doing a good job. Only 23% of independents and 9% of Democrats agree. Congress' ratings are low among all three party groups -- 24% among Republicans, 18% among independents, and 21% among Democrats. The Democratic Party controls both houses of Congress, but that apparently does not endear Democrats to Congress very much.

Well, when Republican operatives start attack-planning for the fall campaign, comparatively, incumbent public opinion ratings won't be as big a drag on the GOP nominee as some might think.

Not only that, if Barack Obama survives the current Wright sermon scandal, we might be seeing some juicy "red phone" style campaign spots: "Is this the kind of judgment Americans expect in the Oval Office?"

See also, "McCain Sitting Pretty While Dems Self-Destruct."

Wright's Statements Not Outliers for Church Flock

I've commented quite a bit on the Barack Obama's Wright scandal.

I have, for example, argued that Obama's statement repudiating Wright's sermons is not enough, that the Illinois Senator needs to cut all ties with a church that proselytizes hatred.

It turns out, as the New York Times reports, that despite some claims that Wright's controversial statements are aberrations in years of work promoting traditional Christian theology, members of the Trinity United Church in fact flock eat up Wright's hated-filled sermons:

Mr. Wright, 66, who last month fulfilled longstanding plans to retire, is a beloved figure in African-American Christian circles and a frequent guest in pulpits around the country. Since he arrived at Trinity in 1972, he has built a 6,000-member congregation through his blunt, charismatic preaching, which melds detailed scriptural analysis, black power, Afrocentrism and an emphasis on social justice; Mr. Obama praised the last quality in Friday’s statement.

His most powerful influence, said several ministers and scholars who have followed his career, is black liberation theology, which interprets the Bible as a guide to combating oppression of African-Americans.

He attracts audiences because of, not in spite of, his outspoken critiques of racism and inequality, said Dwight Hopkins, a professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, in an interview last year.

But Mr. Wright’s blistering statements about American racism can shock white audiences.

“If you’re black, it’s hard to say what you truly think and not upset white people,” said James Cone, a professor at Union Theological Seminary and the father of black liberation theology, who has known Mr. Wright since he was a seminary student.

You think?

I mean, what good natured, patriotic white person would be upset at hearing Wright's venomous and paranoid attacks on this country?

Saddam's Terrorist Friends

Stephen Hayes sets the record straight on the report last week, seen in the mainstream media, that the Pentagon found no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and international terrorist activity:

This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda's second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives." According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq's former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.

The study was commissioned by the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, and produced by analysts at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a federally funded military think tank. It is entitled "Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents." The study is based on a review of some 600,000 documents captured in postwar Iraq. Those "documents" include letters, memos, computer files, audiotapes, and videotapes produced by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially his intelligence services. The analysis section of the study covers 59 pages. The appendices, which include copies of some of the captured documents and translations, put the entire study at approximately 1,600 pages.

An abstract that describes the study reads, in part:

Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam's use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime."

Among the study's other notable findings:

In 1993, as Osama bin Laden's fighters battled Americans in Somalia, Saddam Hussein personally ordered the formation of an Iraqi terrorist group to join the battle there.

For more than two decades, the Iraqi regime trained non-Iraqi jihadists in training camps throughout Iraq.

According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to "armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests."

In the 1990s, Iraq's military intelligence directorate trained and equipped "Sudanese fighters."

In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered "financial and moral support" to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.

In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups.

That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.

There is much, much more. Documents reveal that the regime stockpiled bombmaking materials in Iraqi embassies around the world and targeted Western journalists for assassination. In July 2001, an Iraqi Intelligence agent described an al Qaeda affiliate in Bahrain, the Army of Muhammad, as "under the wings of bin Laden." Although the organization "is an offshoot of bin Laden," the fact that it has a different name "can be a way of camouflaging the organization." The agent is told to deal with the al Qaeda group according to "priorities previously established."

In describing the relations between the Army of Muhammad and the Iraqi regime, the authors of the Pentagon study come to this conclusion: "Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda--as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term vision."

As I said, this ought to be big news. And, in a way, it was. A headline in the New York Times, a cursory item in the Washington Post, and stories on NPR and ABC News reported that the study showed no links between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

How can a study offering an unprecedented look into the closed regime of a brutal dictator, with over 1,600 pages of "strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism," in the words of its authors, receive a wave-of-the-hand dismissal from America's most prestigious news outlets? All it took was a leak to a gullible reporter, one misleading line in the study's executive summary, a boneheaded Pentagon press office, an incompetent White House, and widespread journalistic negligence.

Read the rest.

Antiwar activists and the left-wing media don't want to lose their assumed upper hand in the tired meme calling "Iraq and unmitigated disaster."

To the contrary, the Pentagon report, as reported by Hayes, indicates that the U.S. toppled a regime that was of supreme danger to international security.

See also William Kristol (via Powerline), who explains why the administration's hesitant to trumpet the true significance of the report:

If you talk to people in the Bush administration, they know the truth about the report. They know that it makes the case convincingly for Saddam's terror connections. But they'll tell you (off the record) it's too hard to try to set the record straight. Any reengagement on the case for war is a loser, they'll say. Furthermore, once the first wave of coverage is bad, you can never catch up: You give the misleading stories more life and your opponents further chances to beat you up in the media. And as for trying to prevent misleading summaries and press leaks in the first place--that's hopeless. Someone will tell the media you're behaving like Scooter Libby, and God knows what might happen next.

So, this week's fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war will bring us countless news stories reexamining the case for war, with the White House essentially pleading nolo contendere.

As I've learned, in my many discussions of the antiwar left, virtually no amount of argumentation or evidence will dislodge the opinions of those irretrievable hostile to the United States.

The administration's hesitance indeed shows the power of the postmodern world of political debate.

Thank goodness for the Weekly Standard's writers for reminding us that there's a truth that exists, even if in some quarters that truth is irrelevant.

The Surge at One Year

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno offers an analysis of Iraq on the anniversay of the surge strategy, "The Surge in Iraq: One Year Later":

From January to June 2007, the surge forces deployed gradually to Iraq, but we adjusted our strategy even before the first additional Brigade Combat Team arrived. Implementing the surge involved much more than throwing extra resources at a problem. It meant committing ourselves to pro­tecting the Iraqi populace--with a priority to Bagh­dad--while exploiting what appeared to be nascent progress against AQI in Anbar.

It meant changing our mindset as we secured the people where they worked and slept and where their children played. It meant developing new tac­tics, techniques, and procedures in order to imple­ment this concept. We began to establish Joint Security Stations and Combat Outposts throughout Baghdad. We erected protective barriers and estab­lished checkpoints to create "safe neighborhoods" and "safe markets," improving security for Iraqis as they went about their daily lives....

Obviously, it's entirely too early to declare victory and go home, but I think it's safe to say that the surge of Coalition forces--and how we employed those forces--have broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq. We are in the process of exploiting that success.

Explaining the reduction in violence and its stra­tegic significance has been the subject of much debate. It's tempting for those of us personally con­nected to the events to exaggerate the effects of the surge. By the same token, it's a gross oversimplifica­tion to say, as some commentators have, that the positive trends we're observing have come about because we paid off the Sunni insurgents or because Muqtada al-Sadr simply decided to announce a ceasefire. These assertions ignore the key variable in the equation--the Coalition's change in strategy and our employment of the surge forces.

Suggesting that the reduction in violence result­ed merely from bribing our enemies to stop fighting us is uninformed and an oversimplification. It over­looks our significant offensive push in the last half of 2007 and our rise in casualties in May and June as we began to take back neighborhoods. It overlooks the salient point that many who reconciled with us did so from a position of weakness, rather than strength. The truth is that the improvement in secu­rity and stability is the result of a number of factors, and what Coalition forces did throughout 2007 ranks among the most significant....

Generally speaking, when security conditions improve, a narrow focus on survival opens up and makes room for hope. Hope provides an opportuni­ty to pursue improvements in quality of life. Along these lines, the surge helped set the stage for progress in governance and economic develop­ment. In a very real way and at the local level, this subtle shift in attitude reinforced our security gains--allowing Coalition and Iraqi forces to hold the hard-earned ground we had wrested from the enemy while continuing to pursue extremists as they struggle to regroup elsewhere....

To capitalize on the reduction of violence in 2007, Iraqi leaders must make deliberate choices to secure lasting strategic gains through reconciliation and political progress. This set of choices and their collective effect will be decisive, I think. This view puts things in context.

The future of Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. The improved security conditions resulting in part from the surge of 2007 have given the Iraqis an opportu­nity to choose a better way. In the last week, several major pieces of legislation have been passed by the Iraqi parliament: accountability and justice, provin­cial powers, and amnesty law.

See also my earlier analysis of General David Petraeus' statement yesterday, "Petraeus Lowers Expecations on Iraq."

The Wright Message?

Here's a "Good Morning America" news segment on the Obama church controversy, "Obama's Preacher: The Wright Message" (via YouTube):

FOX News has a transcript of Wright's controversial sermon:

In a fiery sermon taped and available on DVD, Barack Obama’s longtime pastor and spiritual adviser can be seen and heard saying three times: “God damn America.”

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Confronting the content of some of Wright’s sermons, parts of which have been aired this week on FOX News, Obama on Friday moved to condemn the remarks in his firmest statement on the matter to date, after initially stopping short of a full repudiation.

Check the link for the transcript.

See also my previous entry, "Buyer's Remorse: Will the Left Throw Obama From the Train?"

Buyer's Remorse: Will the Left Throw Obama From the Train?

I just saw something strange. A reader at Talking Points Memo, one of the biggest Obama boosters on the web, is having deep second thoughts about Barack Obama:

The Wright time bomb appears to be detonating, now that the horse race narrative has stalled and the media needs new material. The inadequacy of Obama's response is deeply discouraging. I was very excited about Obama, but I suddenly think Wright is going to deal a death blow to him on the "electibility" front. Michelle Obama's comments and now the man who lead him to Jesus is saying "God Damn America", and all BO can say is "I disagree"? He has to thow him under the bus and then back up over him again, but it does not appear that he will. Not clear it would even help that much, given the depth and length of their relationship. Sad to say, but it's best this happen now rather than in October. As distasteful as her tactics have been, I suddenly think we may be better off in November with Hillary. Wright is cancer.

Now, will the left throw Obama from the train? Are these reservations about Obama himself, or about his electability following the Wright controversy? One TPM readers sees Wright's "God Damn America" hatred as perfect attack fodder for John McCain in the fall.

Jane Hamsher's got no doubts about all of this, not unsurprisingly: It's all "anti-Obama right wing propaganda."

I'd bet that Hamsher endorses Wright's sentiment.

Far from denouncing his views, statements like Wright's, "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world," are not far from the views featured regularly in FireDogLake posts.

As always, I'll have more updates of the left's anti-Americanism as things develop.

Not Enough: Obama Wright Repudiation is Lacking

Barack Obama has published a denunciation of Reverend Jeremiah Wright at the Huffington Post:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

That's a good start, but it's not enough.

Obama spends the rest of his essay defending Wright's patriotism and service to country. He argues he was not there at the particular sermons where Wright's spewed his hatred, but that's evasive.

Obama then says that because he was married in Wright's church, and his daughters were babtized there, he "did not think it appropriate to leave the church."

That's not sufficient. No matter his previous ties to the church and his pastor, "categorical" includes those instance of previous assocation with such hatred, sentiments that raise deeply troubling issues of judgement for Sentator Obama.

Obama has said that "Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good."

Well, that's not going to cut it. If Obama's real - if he's genuinely serious about ending this nation's debilitating hyperpartisanship - there's no better place to begin than by completely renouncing any past or present ties to a religious institution that's served as a sanctuary for views that are implacably contrary to the values of this great nation.

See my call for a major statement of denunciation from the Obama campaign, "Calling Obama: Time to Denounce Anti-American Extremism."

See more reaction at Memeorandum.

*********

UPDATE: Some folks are having a hard time seeing that Obama's got big problems. Here's Noam Scheiber, wondering if Obama's HuffPo repudiation was enough:

The more I think about it, the more I think Obama needs to go further....

I think Obama needs a more striking gesture of his own. Like announcing that he's removing Wright from his (largely honorary) position in the campaign, maybe giving a high-profile speech about his faith.

You think?

Calling Obama: Time to Denounce Anti-American Extremism

When Michelle Obama said last month that throughout her adult life she'd never been proud of America, commentators could perhaps be justified in saying she misspoke in the heat of an impassioned campaign speech.

But, that wasn't all: As I've shown, Barack Obama, in his San Antonio concession speech, said that young Americans travelling abroad today cannot hold their heads high and proudly proclaim: "I Am an American."

The truth is, Obama's words actually pack a lot of power, and folks need to pay attention to the significance of his considerable language of opposition to America's traditions and standing in the world. Indeed, things have gotten out of hand for the Obama campaign, illustrated by the controversy surrounding the Illinois Senator's ties to the Jeremiah Wright, senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

Reverend Wright has been Obama’s close mentor and religious influence. But as Ronald Kessler points out at today's Wall Street Journal, Wright represent the most vile elements of the America-bashing contingents on the far left-wing fringe:

In a sermon delivered at Howard University, Barack Obama's longtime minister, friend and adviser blamed America for starting the AIDS virus, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president....

"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."

Mr. Wright thundered on: "America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."

His voice rising, Mr. Wright said, "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic. . . . We care nothing about human life if the end justifies the means. . . ."

Concluding, Mr. Wright said: "We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."

The Wright controversy has been brewing for some time, and Obama has not denounced the language of hate and opposition being spouted by his spiritual mentor.

Kessler goes on:

Hearing Mr. Wright's venomous and paranoid denunciations of this country, the vast majority of Americans would walk out. Instead, Mr. Obama and his wife Michelle have presumably sat through numerous similar sermons by Mr. Wright.

Indeed, Mr. Obama has described Mr. Wright as his "sounding board" during the two decades he has known him. Mr. Obama has said he found religion through the minister in the 1980s. He joined the church in 1991 and walked down the aisle in a formal commitment of faith.

The title of Mr. Obama's bestseller "The Audacity of Hope" comes from one of Wright's sermons. Mr. Wright is one of the first people Mr. Obama thanked after his election to the Senate in 2004. Mr. Obama consulted Mr. Wright before deciding to run for president. He prayed privately with Mr. Wright before announcing his candidacy last year.

Mr. Obama obviously would not choose to belong to Mr. Wright's church and seek his advice unless he agreed with at least some of his views. In light of Mr. Wright's perspective, Michelle Obama's comment that she feels proud of America for the first time in her adult life makes perfect sense.

Much as most of us would appreciate the symbolism of a black man ascending to the presidency, what we have in Barack Obama is a politician whose closeness to Mr. Wright underscores his radical record.

The media have largely ignored Mr. Obama's close association with Mr. Wright. This raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country. Those questions deserve a clearer answer than Mr. Obama has provided so far.

Let me restate Kessler's last point, which I've raised previously: Obama's close relationship with Wright indeed "raises legitimate questions about Mr. Obama's fundamental beliefs about his country."

It's time for Obama to make a major campaign address denouncing his relationship to those who demonize the United States, and he needs to clarify the question of patriotic both he and his wife have created.

Ross Douthat clarifies the matter further, focusing on the religious angle:

So far, Obama has attempted to laugh off Wright's penchant for inflammatory rhetoric, comparing him to "an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," and suggesting that this is "what happens when you just cherry-pick statements from a guy who had a 40-year career as a pastor." But as Wright's America-bashing gets more airtime -- and as his Obama-boosting sermons put his church's tax exemption at risk -- Obama may have to go further down the road to explicitly disavowing his pastor. His connection to Wright isn't the equivalent of John McCain's going to Liberty University to make nice with Jerry Falwell. It's the equivalent of John McCain taking his wife and children, most Sundays, to Jerry Falwell's church. And the disconnect between Obama's studied moderation and his congregation's radicalism requires more of an explanation than he's offered so far.

That's right, and that's why I'm putting out the call for Barack Obama to denounce the extremism and pledge his allegiance to the basic values of patriotism of the United States.

Petraeus Lowers Expecations on Iraq

Via Memeorandum, the left blogosphere is in a heavy lather over General David Petraeus' comment yesterday that Iraqis weren't making sufficient progress toward political reconciliation:

Iraqi leaders have failed to take advantage of a reduction in violence to make adequate progress toward resolving their political differences, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said Thursday.

Petraeus, who is preparing to testify to Congress next month on the Iraq war, said in an interview that "no one" in the U.S. and Iraqi governments "feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation," or in the provision of basic public services.

Petraeus' remarks are clearly geared to lowering political expectations before his congressional testimony, and are also offered as signaling expectations to the Iraqi leadership to step-up implementation of the remaining benchmarks for forward political progress in Iraq.

Petraeus also provided commentary on the overall situation in Iraq:

The Shiite-led government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has won passage of some legislation that aids the cause of reconciliation, drawing praise from President Bush and his supporters. But the Iraqi government also has deferred action on some of its most important legislative goals, including laws governing the exploitation of Iraq's oil resources, that the Bush administration had identified as necessary benchmarks of progress toward reconciliation....

In what appeared to be a foreshadowing of his congressional testimony, which his aides said he would not discuss explicitly, Petraeus insisted that Iraqi leaders still have an opportunity to act. "We're going to fight like the dickens" to maintain the gains in security and "where we can to try and build on it," he said.

While violence has declined dramatically since late 2006, when thousands of Iraqis were being killed each month, U.S. military data show that attacks on U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians have leveled off or risen slightly in the early part of 2008. "I don't see an enormous uptick projected right now," Petraeus said, speaking in his windowless office in the U.S. Embassy, which is housed in Saddam Hussein's former Republican Palace. "What you have seen is some sensational attacks, there's no question about that."

Petraeus said several factors may account for the recent violence, including increased U.S. and Iraqi operations against insurgents in the northern city of Mosul -- which has lately become one of Iraq's most dangerous -- and insurgent efforts to reestablish some of their havens in Baghdad. And Petraeus said U.S. commanders could not discount the possibility that insurgents "know the April testimony is coming up."

Given the radical demonization campaign against Petraeus' testimony last September - recall "David Betray Us" - it's no surprise that the antiwar nihilists are already sharpening knives in preparation of round two.

Matthew Yglesias, a beer-swilling lefty Flophouse blogger, simply declared the past year's military and political progress a lie:

I dunno about that, certainly it seems to me that a lot of the current U.S. government's allies have been arguing, falsely, that there has been adequate progress toward reconciliation.

FireDogLake's come out swinging, interpreting Petraeus' statements as tantamount to admitting the folly of the surge ("Petraeus Admits The Surge Has Failed").

The hard-left's really behind the curve on Iraq progress. What's interesting with all the hard-left attacks on the surge and surge-supporters is the absence of serious analysis. Spencer Ackerman, another of the Flophouse boys, just cusses, moans, and sputters about how "worthless his journalism is" in stopping the war.

Well, I have to agree on the worthlessness of it, although surprisingly these folks have sway on the Democratic side of things.

Which is why I just keep setting the record straight.

The truth is that we're seeing unheralded political progess in Iraq. Prior to the this month, Iraq had met 9 of the 18 congressional benchmarks set a year ago. In the last few weeks the Iraqi regime has met three more, putting progress up to the two-thirds mark. We still have some way to go, but to say political progess is a lie, or that the surge has failed, is simply the deployment of the postmodern version of knowledge handily available to those implacably opposed to American military success.

The Democrats will continue to struggle with this, as facts on the ground make the party's surrender agenda increasing out of step with both strategic and political reality.

Photo Credit: Washington Post

Americans Question Leaving Iraq

As I've noted in recent posts, public opinion on Iraq shows Americans rejecting an immediate pullout from the conflict, despite antiwar agitation for an unconditional surrender.

The latest Gallup survey provides more data on this, "Americans Concerned About Impact of Leaving Iraq":

Most Americans think the United States has an obligation to remain in Iraq until a reasonable level of stability and security has been reached.

Although about 60% of Americans perceive that the United States' initial involvement in the Iraq war was a mistake, fewer than 20% say the United States should initiate an immediate withdrawal of troops.

Why is this the case? A review of the responses to several questions on Iraq in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll provides some indication of the reasons an apparently conflicted American population is hesitant to recommend immediate withdrawal despite its basic feeling that U.S. involvement there has been a mistake.

As the accompanying graph indicates, almost two-thirds of Americans believe the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability in Iraq before withdrawing all troops....

Additionally, more than 60% of Americans feel al Qaeda would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations if the United States withdraws its troops than if it keeps its troops there, mirroring one of the Bush administration's (and presidential candidate John McCain's) most frequently used arguments against an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

A majority of Americans also believe more Iraqis would die from violence in that country if the United States withdraws its troops than would be the case if the United States keeps its troops there.

Half of Americans say the likelihood of a broader Middle East war would increase if the United States withdraws its troops from Iraq, while just 35% say that prospect is more likely if the United States keeps its troops in Iraq.

Americans are not convinced, however, that the possibility of terrorist attacks against the United States would increase if the country withdraws its troops from Iraq -- about as many say such attacks are more likely if the United States keeps troops in Iraq as say they are more likely if the United States withdraws its troops.

Implications

Americans have -- perhaps inevitably, given the complex nature of the war in Iraq -- a set of somewhat ambivalent attitudes about the situation there. In Gallup's latest poll, 59% of Americans say U.S. involvement in the war in Iraq was a mistake. One might think, therefore, that a similar majority would favor an immediate withdrawal of troops from that country. But that's not the case. Less than 20%, in fact, say the United States should withdraw troops immediately. The rest say either that troops should stay in Iraq as long as necessary, with no timetable for withdrawal, or that there should be a gradual timetable for withdrawal.

The data reviewed here suggest that there are reasons Americans hesitate to recommend an immediate withdrawal of troops. A majority of Americans believe that withdrawing troops from Iraq would lead to a greater possibility of al Qaeda using Iraq as a base for terrorist operations, a greater number of Iraqi deaths from violence, and a greater likelihood of a broader Middle East war. Additionally, Americans believe the United States has an obligation to remain in Iraq until that country is stable, and recent poll results suggest that a majority of Americans do not believe a level of stability has yet been reached.

(Americans are not inclined to believe there would be an increased chance of terrorist attacks against the United States if its troops were withdrawn.)

The next U.S. president will face this confused landscape. Americans obviously are negative about the entire Iraqi enterprise (a recent Gallup Poll question shows a majority saying history will judge the U.S. involvement in Iraq to have been a failure), but -- perhaps realistically -- they believe the attempt to extricate the U.S. military from that country is not going to be a simple or straightforward matter.

As Gallup's results indicate, Iraq has become a wearisome foreign policy problem for Americans.

Yet, the data, once again, do not show anything near an immediate public demand for a troop redeployment. This situation places a tremendous burden of proof on the Democratic Party, and particulary on the antiwar left. How can they justify their continuing demonization of the Bush administration and the war and remain a credible party on national security in 2008?

The great majority of people want to see America stay on in Iraq to see the job to a more stable conclusion, and until the Democrats change their tune, this fact will redound to the benefit of GOP nominee-in-waiting John McCain

I'll have more opinion analysis forthcoming.

America's New Isolationism?

Andrew Kohut offers an intriguing look at public opinion trends in rising isolationism:

Disillusionment with the Iraq war has ushered in a rise in isolationist sentiment comparable to that of the mid-1970s following the Vietnam war. Pew surveys have found as many as four in 10 Americans saying the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own.”

This is a significantly higher percentage of people than subscribed to this view at the beginning of the decade. A rise in isolationism has signaled a diminished public appetite for the assertive national security policy of the Bush years and, in general, a less internationalist outlook. For example, in the summer of 2006, polls found majorities of Americans saying the United States was not responsible for resolving the conflict between Israel and other countries in the Middle East during the war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

American public opinion is also extraordinarily partisan. Consider, Iraq. It remains number one on the public’s foreign policy issue agenda, yet there is hardly a consensus as to what to do next. While a late February Pew poll found a continuing majority of respondents (54 percent) saying the war was a mistake, opinions were evenly divided about how and when to extract United States forces.

About half of those surveyed (49 percent) said they favored bringing troops home as soon as possible, but most (33 percent) favored gradual withdrawal over the next year or two, rather than immediate withdrawal. Similarly, just under half (47 percent) said that the United States should keep troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized. But those who wanted to “stay the course” were divided too, with 30 percent saying that no timetable should be set and 16 percent favoring a timetable.

What the candidates say about Iraq in the general election will be further tested by the huge partisan gap in responses: a 54-percentage-point divide between Democrats and Republicans about keeping troops in Iraq.

With rising concerns about the economy and jobs in particular, trade is a prime example of a tricky issue for the candidates, let alone the next president. While most Americans continue to think that global trade is a good thing, the number feeling this way is sharply lower than it was in the past. Just 59 percent of Americans say trade with other countries is having a good effect on the United States, down sharply from 78 percent in 2002.

Trade is a tougher challenge for John McCain than it is for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama because a key element in the Republican base — the business class — remains heavily pro-trade. This may explain why, as of this writing, Senator McCain’s official web site does not name trade as one of the 15 issues “of focus.”

While the American public is divided on Iraq, and increasingly wary about trade, it also remains divided on the so-called war on terrorism. A narrow majority (52 percent) continues to say it is right for the government to monitor the communications of suspected terrorists without first getting court permission; 44 percent say this is wrong.

The use of torture is a similarly divisive issue, with about half saying it can be justified often or sometimes when used against suspected terrorists to gain important information. A modest majority (52 percent) believes that the detainees the United States is holding at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are being treated fairly.

But again there is a wide partisan divide on these issues. Nearly twice as many Republicans as Democrats believe it is right for the government to conduct surveillance of suspected terrorists without court permission (74 percent versus 39 percent). The partisan differences in the treatment of Guantanamo detainees are nearly identical: 73 percent of Republicans say the government’s policies toward detainees are fair, compared with 39 percent of Democrats.

Obviously, on these — and just about all other foreign policy questions — Senator McCain and his Democratic opponent will be confronted with the daunting task of appealing not only to their bases, but also to independents, who have decidedly different opinions about these issues. And as we have already seen, both campaigns will be drawn into foreign policy, nonetheless, because Senator McCain will run on his experience and Senators Clinton and Obama will attempt to tie him to President Bush’s record. In turn, each side will work hard to show that the opposition’s way of thinking about foreign policy is out of touch with a moderate point of view.

Reading through Kohut's essay, there appears to be less isolationist sentiment than one might think. On trade, sure, job losses have created pressures among voters on the left and right to realign America's trade agreements to protect American jobs.

But an in ward turn in foreign policy on the Iraq and the war on terrorism is less pronounced. And for all the talk of which candidate is seen as best on international experience McCain holds his own against either potential Democratic opponent.

I've noted in a couple of recent posts that progress in Iraq is likely to help Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain (see here and here).

The Wall Street Journal 's new survey provides some support. Thirty-five percent of those surveyed said John McCain has the right approach on Iraq, compared to 30 and 27 for Clinton and Obama respectively. McCain plans to continue the U.S. troop deployment for some duration, so for all the talk of isolationism, there's real evidence that Americans are committed to seeing victory through in Iraq, a priority of GOP foreign policy.

Iraq Will Shape Presidential Campaign

USA Today reports that a majority of the public thinks the Iraq war was a mistake, yet less than 1 in 5 Americans believes the U.S. should withdraw immediately, no matter the consequences (a result in line with Gallup's recent poll finding just 17 percent in favor of an immediate, unconditional withdrawal).

The USA Today findings bolster the argument I made today in rebuttal to Glenn Greenwald's unprincipled attack on David Kuhn and his piece today at the Politico, "Support for War Effort Highest Since 2006."

Here's the summary from USA Today:

The debate over Iraq is likely to be sharpened in this year's presidential campaign in a way not seen since President Bush ordered the invasion launched in 2003.

McCain has been the invasion's most consistent defender on Capitol Hill and an early critic of how the administration was executing the war. He's likely to stand against Illinois Sen. Obama, who has made his opposition to the war the foundation of his presidential bid, or New York Sen. Clinton, who says she would withdraw her vote to authorize the Iraq war if she could and promises to start a pullout within 60 days of taking office.

"This election is going to be a referendum, to some extent, on the war," says Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University who studies public opinion on Iraq.

In the USA Today poll, six in 10 Americans said the United States should set a timetable for withdrawal and stick to it no matter what. Just 35% said U.S. troops should remain until the situation in Iraq gets better, a number as low as it's ever been.

That would seem to be a boon to Democrats, but the politics of Iraq aren't that simple.

Among the groups of anti-war voters, McCain draws support from one-third of those who are the most pessimistic about the future of the Iraq conflict, a group that includes a mix of Republicans and Democrats. In a head-to-head contest against Clinton, McCain also wins one-third of those who want to get out but feel obliged to achieve more security first. He has argued to them that, whatever differences they have on the wisdom of the invasion, he is the candidate best able to stabilize Iraq.

McCain's appeal to some anti-war voters makes it possible that he could put together a majority coalition — or at least neutralize the issue — despite the downturn in public opinion toward the war.

"You cannot go into a country and destroy everything and leave it in chaos without helping them rebuild some kind of infrastructure," says Jennifer Curry, 59, one of the Delaware residents who joined the roundtable discussion. She supports withdrawing U.S. troops but only when Iraq is reasonably stable.

"I mean, there's a limit," she says, "but I think we owe it to them to give them a shot."

"If we leave there now, what will happen?" counters Burkett, a former Marine. "If we wait a year and leave there, what will happen? The answer will still be the same whether we're there six months or whether we wait 10 years and leave."

Notice here how even people who are tired of the deployment want some assurance that the U.S. leaves Iraq relatively stable, which could require a longer deployment.

Also, check out Abe Greenwald at Commentary, who identifies the problem facing the Democrats in November:

Here is their unenviable task: to tell the American voter that his or her confidence in America’s ability to win at last is misplaced; to convince them what we need to do instead is pull our troops out and call for a troop surge in Afghanistan. Even more challenging for the Democrats is that time is not on their side. As recently as September 2007, only 42 percent of Americans believed the U.S. would succeed in Iraq. That number jumped 11 points in five months. The Democratic national convention is another five months away, and the benefits of the troop surge continue to mount. Just imagine the presidential nominee having to tell 64 percent of the country that they’re wrong about American victory.

The Democrats hitched their presidential hopes to a sense of national defeat that wasn’t sustained by circumstances. If there’s one thing every military expert will tell you, it’s that war is fluid. Defeatism does not allow for this fluidity. Once you declare a war lost, you’ve closed the door on the possibilities that arise with the changing nature of the fight and any potential innovations to capitalize on them. In this sense, defeatism is a practical handicap, whereas striving for victory necessarily depends upon the ability to adapt to a shifting landscape.

Enter John McCain. He recognized the failings of the Rumsfeld plan and, determined not to quit, pushed for new ideas. Having backed the Petraeus plan that’s responsible for the shift in Iraq, he doesn’t need to dance around the pro-victory majority—let alone convince them to throw in the towel. Seeing these new figures, the Democrats will at some point try to back off on the defeatist rhetoric, but there’s only so far they can go and not seem preposterous. A 180-degree turn on Iraq would create too much fallout about flip-flopping, experience, and character. It’s not clear how the Democrats are going to wriggle out of this one. But the man who changed when it most mattered can stay in one place for a while.

See also today's earlier entries, "Public Support for Iraq at Highest Since 2006," and "Supporting the Troops."

Photo Credit: USA Today