You know, I'm starting to think that the WaPo doesn't *approve* of Obama's Iraq policy.

I hope that they've given their reporter a big enough budget tocover an emergency alternate return flight.

I know, it sounds difficult to believe - but for some strangereason, the Washington Post seems almost... well,skeptical about the whole "run away from ourresponsibilities to the Iraqi people and attempt to recreate thatentire South Vietnam collapse" thing. In fact, I would go so far asto suggest - maybe, just maybe! - that the WaPo might actuallythink that this was... a bad idea. Even if it isbeing trumpeted by the junior Senator from Illinois.

Shocking, no?

Mr. Obama in Iraq

Did he really find support for his withdrawal plan?

THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of Barack Obama's visit to Iraqsuggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with hisplan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. Soit seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account,neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leadersactually support his strategy.

Yesterday he denied being "so rigid and stubborn that I ignoreanything that happens during the course of the 16 months," thoughthis would be more reassuring if Mr. Obama were not rigidly andstubbornly maintaining his opposition to the successful "surge" ofthe past 16 months.

{snip of neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal politicalleaders actually supporting Obama's strategy. }

Mr. Obama's response is that, as president, he would have toweigh Iraq's needs against those of Afghanistan and the U.S.economy. He says that because Iraq is "a distraction" from moreimportant problems, U.S. resources devoted to it must be curtailed.Yet he also says his aim is to "succeed in leaving Iraq to asovereign government that can take responsibility for its ownfuture." What if Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi leaders are right thatthis goal is not consistent with a 16-month timetable? Will Iraq bewritten off because Mr. Obama does not consider it important enough-- or will the strategy be altered?

Doing the roundup: Instapundit(H/T) thinks that this might be a sign that the media may not begiving Obama quite the free ride that the publicis increasingly seeing them as giving.
Tom Maguire (who, alas, seems slightly morbidly depressed atthe thought that we might actually elect this fellow) floats a newslogan: "Peace with honor at a price you can afford." Ed Morrissey of Hot Air simply notes that while Afghanistandoes need more emphasis - and while we can use our victory in Iraqto cover that emphasis - it needs to be advocated for the rightreason, which is not because doing so will enhance a particularcandidate's electoral chances.

I want to put a special emphasis on this, because we seem to behaving people out there who have difficulty grasping the concept -and the prominent of those people happens to be the assumedDemocratic candidate for President. Senator Obama got theIraqi War drastically wrong. He was wrong to oppose it, hewas wrong when he guessed that it would lead to utter disaster*, hewas wrong about the Surge - heck, Katie Couric did everything except outright beg him to revise andextend his remarks - and now that we've won there, he wants totry to insinuate himself into that victory, after several years ofdoing everything he could to make it impossible. This is, by theway, not unusual behavior for him: he generally got away with it inboth the Illinois and the US Senate {H/T for both: Buck Naked Politics}.

Unfortunately for him, people are paying more attentionnow. He can be indifferent to my low opinion of his inability toadmit that he was wrong all he likes; whether he can be similarlycocky towards the Washington Post... should play outinterestingly.

Moe Lane

*Please, by all means: whine about that statement. I haven'tgiven out homework assignments on Military Blunders of theWorld Wars, Casualty Rates of the American Civil War,Strategic Repercussions of the Spanish-American War, orStandard Insurgency / Counter-Insurgency Tactics,Post-1950 for some time now.