I just checked in after flying across the country, and think these are a few of the most devastating paragraphs I have ever read, posted by Dean earlier today:

Does Andrew think nobody notices? He attacks General Petraeus as a man of no integrity and bluntly accuses him of a willingness to lie, and then asserts "[t]here's been no 'smearing' of General Petraeus, as far as I can see."

There are only three possible explanations: (1)Sullivan does not understand his libel of General Petraeus on July 18 to be offensive, which would reveal Sullivan as an individual of no honor at all; (2)Sullivan forgot he smeared Petraeus; or (3)Sullivan doesn't care what people think of him, provided they think of him. (I fell for it before, but no more.)

For a concise summary of the smears directed at Petraeus, including a citation to Sullivan's, see this.

Even the anti-war fringe must be disgusted with Sullivan, who is with them until he realizes that he's gone a slanderous bridge too far.

Posted by Generalissimo.

You usually don’t have to wait very long for the fever swamp to seize upon news and completely overplay their hand. Take the news of the seizure suffered by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The scare for the chief apparently wasn’t serious enough for Wonkette’s liking, a sentiment which should be repulsive to all Americans regardless of political ideology, but that’s not the only reaction that’s outrageous and offensive.

Today on CNN’s Situation Room, The Cafferty File, the regular segment that could just as easily be called Let’s See What The Ill-informed, Lefty New York Crank Thinks, Jack Cafferty offered the following as one of his questions of the hour.

Hi, Wolf. U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts released from the Maine hospital where he was taken after suffering a seizure yesterday. Good news, doctors say test results show no cause for concern, diagnosed the seizure as benign, with no apparent damage, and no identifiable cause. But it turns out that Roberts suffered a similar seizure in January of 1993. Senator Arlen Specter says that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee knew about that seizure two years ago, but didn’t think it was significant enough to bring up during Roberts’ confirmation hearings. Say what? Arlen Specter and his colleagues don’t think we the public need to know that the man nominated to be chief justice of the United States is prone to seizures. I wonder how many medical degrees there are on the Senate Judiciary Committee? Consider this, Roberts, like other federal judges who have these jobs for life, are not required to divulge any information about their health or medical conditions, none whatsoever. Just this year, FBI files were released that showed when the late chief justice, William Rehnquist checked into a hospital for treatment of back pain and an addiction to a prescription pain killer, he suffered from hallucinations. One doctor said a then-associate justice tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas, and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him. But the public didn’t know a thing about this. These Supreme Court justices arguably have as much or more influence over all of our lives in America than anyone else in this country. So with that in mind, here’s our question. Should Supreme Court justices be required to disclose their medical conditions?

In a word, no.

1. There is still something resembling a representative government in this country, with a Constitution that says the United States Senate, duly elected by the residents of all fifty states, shall provide advice and consent. If there is a medical condition that would be deemed disqualifying of government service, that’s technically up to the executive branch to discover in the vetting process, and then up to the Senate in the confirmation process.
2. The example that Cafferty used in his diatribe was that of a medical episode by Chief Roberts well into his term at the Supreme Court, a medical condition that didn’t exist at the time of his confirmation, unless Cafferty is hinting that the Senate should have probed and disclosed publicly any backaches the Chief might have had as a young person, just in case he someday might get progressively worse and develop additional problems. It’s nonsense.
3. Chief Roberts had one previous seizure, not exactly what one would consider to be a chronic condition. If he had had a concussion as a child, would that raise concerns about his potential fitness on the Court? What if he ate French fries every day when he was at law school? Is his caloric content and dietary regimen now something that should be disclosed, and given as much weight as his intellectual capacity? Considering the frailty of Justice Ginsburg, does Cafferty and the left really want to go here the next time a Democratic president gets to nominate someone for the Court?

Cafferty’s question is of course inappropriate, and deserves to be ridiculed. John Roberts is the Chief Justice because of a lifetime of extraordinary work in and around the federal judiciary, and his near encyclopedic recall of past Court cases impressed even the most harsh critic in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the end of the confirmation hearing, there was nothing Chuck Schumer had as a reason to scuttle his nomination. There might be some Supreme Court justices that have more credentials than Roberts, but there’s not very many of them.

Once again, it’s nice that The Situation Room has Cafferty on twice an hour, every day, to give voice to the fever swamp of the left, apparently with little or no editorial oversight. I’m still waiting for a conservative to be given the same opportunity on a daily basis to vent unencumbered, without having to share the table with Paul Begala or Donna Brazille to counter every word they say.

I’m also more convinced than ever that the same CNN executives that bring you Jack Cafferty on The Situation Room will bring the same sense of fair play and balance to the GOP YouTube debate next month, and not try to sandbag the Republican candidates with Santa Claus questions…not.

Andrew Sullivan this morning:

“There's been no 'smearing' of David Petraeus, so far as I can see."

Andrew Sullivan on July 18:

“Petraeus is either willing to be used by the Republican propaganda machine or he is part of the Republican propaganda machine. I'm beginning to suspect the latter. The only thing worse than a deeply politicized and partisan war is a deeply politicized and partisan commander. But we now know whose side Petraeus seems to be on: Cheney's. Expect spin, not truth, in September.”

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

Yesterday I wrote about Congresswoman Nancy Boyda who found three-star General John Keane’s (ret.) positive report about Iraq so upsetting that she had to leave the briefing room in a huff. While we don’t know exactly what the General said that so riled the obviously easily riled representative, Keane did give an interview to National Review’s Rich Lowry which gives us some insight into that burning question. Here’s some of what Keane told Lowry, but by all means read the whole thing:

The success that the security operation is achieving is, in my judgment, very definable. What I have done is, in my first visit in February since the operation began, I went into neighborhoods in Baghdad and then returned 90 days later to make a comparison. And I will do the same in August…

What you see is a stark contrast to ‘06 in those neighborhoods. Because all the schools are open. The markets are teaming with people. Some operating at full capacity; some not quite there because of the level of violence in their neighborhood and some of the construction that was being done, but nonetheless a steady improvement. Government services are being administrated in the neighborhoods and again some of that is uneven because of the nature of the government of itself, but nonetheless there is an attempt to provide essential services to the population where in ‘06 there were none…

I think Baghdad (in a year or two) will be stable except for an occasional car bomb by the al Qaeda. Anbar province will be stable. Diyala province will be stable and many of the provinces around Baghdad will be almost as stable. And I see us, from a security perspective, having made some very significant gains, particularly in comparison from ‘06 and from a political perspective, I absolutely see the change that is taking place from the grassroots level in the Sunni and Shia wanting change.

Once again, read the whole thing. The General doesn’t back away from addressing the unsatisfactory political situation in Baghdad, and is no Pollyanna. But overall, the picture is a lot more encouraging than it was a year ago or even a few months ago. This perhaps explains why the New York Times found the American public more encouraged about the situation in Iraq, much to the Grey Lady’s shock and horror.

No wonder why Nancy Boyda left the room in a hurry when General Keane gave his briefing. Wouldn’t want to take any chance of getting confused by the facts.

OF COURSE, THE COUNTRY IS full of Nancy Boydas – people who refuse to hear good news from Iraq. They believe that the war is lost and that the sooner America and especially the Bush administration admit its humiliation at the hands of Al Qaeda and abandon millions of Iraqis to genocidal massacres, the better. It is in Nancy Boyda’s honor that I now introduce the Nancy Boyda Award, which I will present to people who ostentatiously deny whatever good news might come out of Iraq.

Some Nancy Boyda Award winners will twist good news into bad news. For instance, the surge became fully operational a little less than a couple of months ago. In May, we suffered 125 casualties. In June, that number ticked down to 101. With July almost over, the number currently stands at 74. Each casualty is a loss to be mourned; still, the fact that the casualty figure has declined by roughly 20% per month while our troops have been most active and engaged is clearly an encouraging sign. What’s more, given the activity level of the current American mission, the number of U.S. casualties should be a lagging indicator of the situation in Iraq. Logically, our casualties should decrease only when more bad-guys are dead and their activity already diminished. In other words, these numbers should represent improvement across the board in Iraq, which is exactly what General Keane reported and those two crazy-brave Brookings fellows wrote about in yesterday’s New York Times.

So, you might wonder, how does a hard left website like the Daily Kos deal with an appalling development such as fewer U.S. military men dying in Iraq while achieving greater results? Long time Kos front pager “Meteor Blades” answered that question by making the following observation under the heading ”Iraq by the Numbers”:

Try a different perspective regarding that "drop." Compare the Coalition’s fatalities for all the Julys that the U.S. has occupied Iraq via the Iraq Coalition Casualty Count Website:

July 2007: 77
July 2006: 46
July 2005: 58
July 2004: 58
July 2003: 49

In honor of this tendentious piece of drivel “Meteor Blades” wins our first Nancy Boyda Award! Congratulations, Meteor Blades, wherever you are.

ODDLY ENOUGH, ANDREW SULLIVAN provides the perfect coda to our debut of the Nancy Boyda Award. Earlier today, Andrew was slightly miffled that I suggested that “the left and other anti-war figures like Andrew Sullivan have a lot invested in this war failing and failing miserably.” Andrew took delight when someone took my logic and inverted it, writing, “The right and other pro-war figures like Dean Barnett have a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew commented with a portentous and approving “Hmmmmm.”

Probably unwittingly, Andrew has confirmed my theory that this war’s opponents have forgotten something basic and elemental: Every American, regardless of his party affiliation or political philosophy, has “a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew Sullivan used to know that. Best to ask him why he’s forgotten it.

And ask Representative Nancy Boyda also, while you’re at it.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

A quick trip to D.C. won't get me there in time to broadcast tonight, so Dean Barnett will fill in today. I hope he spends time on the subject he wrote about below, as the Burns interview is combining with the O'Hanlon/Pollack piece to send the anti-war fringe into something like shock.

McQ asks: "To those who agree with the left's assessment of Petraeus and the 'Brookings two' is John Burns now an irredeemable political hack as well?"

The transcript of my interview with Michael O'Hanlon from yesterday's program is here. Unlike the hard left, O'Hanlon trusts General Petraeus. But he wants a second Iraq Stud Group, an idea that seems odd given the surge that O'Hanlon sees working --on a military level-- was not part of the first Iraq Study Group's prescription. An exchange:

HH: Do you trust him to give a complete, fair and accurate assessment of conditions on the ground when he makes his September report?

MO’H: Oh, yeah, Petraeus is outstanding, and so is Ambassador Crocker, and they will…you know, and General Odierno’s quite capable as well. They will give us good information. However, I will nod my cap, or tip my cap just a little bit to Democrats on this point. They have said well, you know, we don’t necessarily trust them. I think these are people of great integrity and great ability, however their job is to try to find a way to succeed. And that’s good for our country, but it also means that they’re going to be looking for the bright spots. I still think they are about the three best people we could ask to speak on this of everybody I can think of, but I would favor the more independent eyes, and I’d favor, for example, an Iraqi Study Group II that might include Tony Zinni, the retired general, or Sam Nunn, the retired Senator, and have them look at the information as well to complement what Petraeus and Crocker will do.

The surge was the stratgey propsed by General Petraeus and others and embraced by George Bush. The authors of the first sustained success in the last year-and-a-half deserve to be listened to and their advice taken. That would include obviously General Petraeus, but also General Keane and Fred Kagan --who first proposed the surge in December of last year.

The New Yorker's Nancy Franklin doesn't care for it, but I have blown through five episodes in two days and am hooked. I haven't seen much commentary on it, and welcome some e-mails ont he subject.

NRO's symposium on the O'Hanlon-Pollack op-ed is great reading, especially the entries by Victor Davis Hanson and Michael Yon.

From Hanson's entry:

In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning. Al Qaeda and the insurgents in 2004-6 developed the means, both tactical and strategic, to thwart the reconstruction, but we, not they, have since learned the more and evolved.

As in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, the present American military — which has committed far less mistakes than past American forces — has shifted tactics, redefined strategy, and found the right field commanders. We forget that the U.S. Army and Marines, far from being broken, now have the most experienced and wizened officers in the world. Like Summer 1864, Summer 1918, and in the Pacific 1944-5, the key is the support of a weary public for an ever improving military that must nevertheless endure a final storm before breaking the enemy.

The irony is that should President Bush endure the hysteria and furor and prove able to give the gifted Gen. Petraeus the necessary time — and I think he will — his presidency could still turn out to be Trumanesque, once we digest the changes in Europe, the progress on North Korea, the end of both the Taliban and Saddam, and the prevention of another 9/11 attack. How odd that all the insider advice to triangulate — big spending, new programs, uninspired appointments, liberal immigration reform — have nearly wrecked the administration, and what were once considered its liabilities — foreign policy, the war on terror and Iraq — may still save it.

Michael Yon has filed another one of his amazing dispatches from Iraq. This one comes from the frontlines of the Battle for Baqubah. The valor and excellence of our men is inspiring, and Michael as always deserves kudos for putting himself in harm’s way to get the story. For goodness sakes, please consider hitting this man’s tip jar.

The image above comes from Michael’s report. It’s of an exhausted American soldier, after participating in a battle that has dramatically improved the fate of tens of thousands of Iraqis, catching a quick catnap outside a destroyed building in 120 degree heat. That, my fellow Americans, is your United States military.

Why do I get so upset when people like Franklin Foer and his co-conspirators at The New Republic go to great lengths to slander the men serving in Iraq? Take a look at that image, and read Michael Yon’s report.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

The transcript of my interview with the New York Times' John Burns is here. (I taped it Friday.) The audio for the two-hour broadcast will be here later. Some key excerpts:

HH: One of the arguments for those favoring a timeline for withdrawal that’s written in stone is that it will oblige the Iraqi political class to get serious about such things as the oil revenue division. Do you believe that’s an accurate argument?

JB: Well, you would think it would be so, wouldn’t you, that the threat of withdrawal of American troops, and the risk of a slide into catastrophic levels of violence, much higher than we’ve already seen, would impel the Iraqi leadership to move forward. But there’s a conundrum here. There’s a paradox. That’s to say the more that the Democrats in the Congress lead the push for an early withdrawal, the more Iraqi political leaders, particularly the Shiite political leaders, but the Sunnis as well, and the Kurds, are inclined to think that this is going to be settled, eventually, in an outright civil war, in consequence of which they are very, very unlikely or reluctant, at present, to make major concessions. They’re much more inclined to kind of hunker down. So in effect, the threats from Washington about a withdrawal, which we might have hoped would have brought about greater political cooperation in face of the threat that would ensue from that to the entire political establishment here, has had, as best we can gauge it, much more the opposite effect, of an effect that persuading people well, if the Americans are going, there’s absolutely no…and we’re going to have to settle this by a civil war, why should we make concessions on that matter right now?
Read More...

On the eve of the feast day of Ignatius Loyola, John Brown, S.J., launches The Jesuit Review, which features a 10 installment set of internet videos focusing on Jesuit/Ignatian spirituality, Jesuit history and contemporary Jesuits.

Brown is joining a list of extraordinary Christian commentators who grasp the incredible potential of the web to change how the Church communicates with the world. Evangelization has never had such opportunities open to it, and a series of extraordinarily talented theologians are demonstrating to the wider community of Christian scholars, teachers and pastors the vast potential of the web, among them Albert Mohler, Jr, Mark D. Roberts and John Mark Reynolds --Presbyterian, Baptist, and Orthodox respectively. There are of course many others, and folks like Joe Carter are showing laymen as well how to use the web to communicate their values and worldview. A new and younger group of Christian bloggers are also making their way into the virtual crossroads, among them Rhett Smith and Matt Anderson.

I am not aware of any American seminary yet offering "new media and evangalization" courses, but they can't be far behind. (Rome's Pontifical University of The Holy cross has a growing graduate program that teaches communication theory and skills applicable across new media. Some American seminaries across denominational lines should examine it closely for ideas on how to focus some resources on the new technologies open to the Church.) The Jesuit Review is just one more example of the variety of great uses to which the web can be put when good and creative minds invest time and thought in the process.

If the prospect of using the web to advance your faith intrigues you, think about attending GodBlogCon 3, one of the tracks at BlogWorldExpo in Las Vegas on November 8 and 9. Most of the people mentioned in this post will be participating, and perhaps John Brown can be induced to join them. The communication directors of every major Christian institution and the pastors of most megachurches should be in attendance at this event.

One other note on evangelization --Father C. John McCloskey's new book, written with Russell Shaw, arrived in the mail, Good News, Bad News: Evangelization, Conversion, and the Crisis of Faith. Father McCloskey is known as the priest who introduced many of D.C.'s high profile converts to the Catholic Church.

The crisis of the war and the clashes of political life tend to obscure the great things that are happening as a result of the communications revolution, and the impact on the Church's ability to spread its message is among those very, very good things.

As I predicted earlier in the day, the left wing blogosphere has turned on the Brookings scholars who went to Iraq and noted the results of the surge. Glenn Greenwald, a.k.a. “The Lion of Jalalabad”, penned a characteristically windy attempt at character assassination. Thankfully, Matthew Yglesias showed more brevity.

Characteristically, both pieces didn’t take issue with what Brookings-men Kenneth Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon reported seeing in Iraq but instead attacked them personally. If you’ve studied the moonbats in their native habitats as I have the past several years, this comes as no surprise. After all, what is the chickenhawk meme but an attempt to win an argument by attacking your opponent rather than engaging his ideas? Has anyone come back from Iraq recently and not seen progress? Wouldn’t an effective rebuttal of O’Hanlon’s and Pollack’s article sought out such friendly sources?

When it comes to dealing substantively with Iraq, the left has a problem. For four joyous years, the left could properly point to a series of Bush administration miscalculations and screw-ups. In spite of being the first MBA president, President Bush spent years without having his entire administration working out of the same playbook. Donald Rumsfeld wanted to topple nations, not build them. And Colin Powell – well, who knows what his shop wanted? All we know is that State’s viceroy in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, made a series of grievous miscalculations such as the disastrous DeBaathification program.

Historians will long debate how much blame President Bush will get for these blunders. War is a tough business, and even successful ones are chock-full of screw-ups. Abe Lincoln doesn’t take much of a rap in the history books for letting the inept George McClellan or the buffoonish “Fightin’ Joe” Hooker run his armies during the Civil War. The fact that he got it right by the end of the war essentially erased many of those mistakes.

Since David Petraeus came to command in Iraq, unanimously confirmed by our prescient and wise senators, have you noticed what we haven’t heard? We haven’t heard any stories of operational stumbling. We haven’t heard any stories of strategic cluelessness. We haven’t heard anything that resembles the breakdowns at Abu Ghraib or the temporizing in Fallujah. In short, General Petraeus is running things superbly in Iraq.

For some on the left, this comes as a painful development. Tales of Bush administration incompetence have become a happy staple of the left’s list of grievances against the administration. While they still have Alberto Gonzales to (rightly) carp about, things on the competence front have improved in Iraq. Dramatically.

SO HOW HAS THE LEFT reacted to this positive development? Poorly, angrily, and childishly. In other words, characteristically.

Michael Goldfarb at the Weekly Standard today wrote on Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Boyda. Boyda sits on the House Armed Services Committee, and had to endure hearing a positive report on the situation in Iraq from General Keane (ret.). It was all too much for the fair Representative. Rather than listen to the gibberish the three star general offered, she stormed out of the hearing room. Upon her return, she offered the following declaration:

As many of us -- there was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things -- after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.

But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation -- things are going so well -- those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.

Positive news out of Iraq divides the nation? Who knew? Remember, tragically enough, this was a congresswoman talking.

This attitude is the primary reason why the left’s collective head may explode if the news from Iraq takes a turn for the better. It's also why we’re beginning to see the left hit strange new lows. As Charles Johnson noted, the Daily Kos had a Diary theorizing that George W. Bush had Pat Tillman killed because Tillman was planning to meet with Noam Chomsky. Andrew Sullivan is also focusing on Tillman’s tragic death; with no fresh horrible news to work with, the Tillman tragedy provides the left this week’s tool to bludgeon the administration and the war effort.

And then there is of course Scott Thomas Beauchamp. It was ten days ago that New Republic editor Franklin Foer told the world that he had corroborating evidence to support Beauchamp’s tales of “mild practical jokes.” Foer has still yet to descend TNR’s Mt. Olympus to share those details with a curious public. We do know that in an apparent search for atrocities, TNR sent its own private uniform-wearing embed into Baghdad to get the grimy details. When their embed produced stories that left the rest of the world incredulous, TNR still thought it had a wonderful scoop on its hands.

The left doesn’t want good news out of Iraq, and it certainly doesn’t want the American public supporting the war effort. In a story that James Taranto noted last week, the New York Times asked in its most recent poll a recurring question that they also asked in past polls: “Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the United States have stayed out?” When asked the same question in May, the 35% of the public said yes, 61% said no. This time around, 42% said yes and 54% said no, narrowing the percentage of people who consider it a mistake to invade Iraq vs. those who thin it was the right thing to do from 26% to 12%.

The Times found this result so “counter-intuitive” that they re-polled the question. Much to the paper’s surprise/horror, they got the same result. It’s odd that the Times settled on the word “counter-intuitive” to describe the polls’ results. With the situation improving in Iraq and the war effort having dramatically improved, why would you be shocked that the public feels a bit better about the war unless you’ve come to adopt your own echo-chamber rhetoric as gospel truth?

The left and other anti-war figures like Andrew Sullivan have a lot invested in this war failing and failing miserably. They have a lot invested emotionally, intellectually and most of all politically. That’s why they routinely dismiss or ignore good news out of Iraq and hype bad or even potentially fabricated news like the Thomas Diarists.

It’s been interesting watching their tactics evolve over the past few weeks, from the publishing of the Thomas Diarists to the smearing of David Petraeus. Interesting, but also revolting.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

I am cautiously optimistic that there will be a Republican YouTube debate. CNN is now working to reschedule the debate, and Governor Romney says that he’d be open to participating in a rescheduled debate. Mayor Giuliani expressed support for a date change as early as last Friday, and in fact says he enjoyed the format. Both candidates are fully on board with the idea that a scheduling conflict is no reason to pass up this unique opportunity to speak the American people.

SavetheDebate.com will continue to keep the pressure on. As Ronald Reagan said, “Trust but verify.” We’ll continue to hold the candidates’ feet to the fire until all the candidates are confirmed to attend the first Internet-driven Republican debate. And then we’ll turn to the next phase of our effort: taking the lead in driving intelligent, quality questions for the candidates from grassroots Republicans online and off.

Please keep visiting SavetheDebate.com to sign the petition and catch our roundup of all the great media coverage this weekend.

In my post earlier this morning, I referred to the Brookings Institution as a "hard left" organization. This was simply incorrect, and I apologize. "Left leaning" would have been much more accurate.

Sorry about that.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

There are two interesting things on the Internets today. And the day is still young!

As many early-risers including Hugh have already noted, the New York Times ran a potentially seismic op-ed piece today by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the hard left Brookings Institution. The authors have just returned from a trip to Iraq, and they saw what everyone else has seen – noteworthy progress:

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.

Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference…

How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.

By all means, read the whole thing. If the left has lost Brookings…I will monitor left wing Blogistan today for posts explaining why O’Hanlon and Pollack are in fact neo-con chickenhawk hacks and always have been.

One of the key takeaways from their report is that David Petraeus is doing an outstanding job. If you think that fact will inhibit the left’s attempts to minimize and marginalize him, you haven’t been paying attention the left over the past five years.

Over at The American Prospect’s blog, the kids that had the good sense to go to work for TAP and not The New Republic are having a little conversation about the allegedly rocky relationship between Petraeus and Nouri Al-Maliki. TAPper Robert Farley, responding to a suggestion elsewhere that the Bush administration will pull Petraeus from Iraq because of his and Al-Maliki’s differences, writes:

Eh... Nouri Al-Maliki looks a lot more like Ngo Dinh Diem to me than Chiang Kai Shek. Indeed, he bears even more resemblance to the endless series of jokers, like Nguyen Cao Ky, who "ruled" South Vietnam at one point or another during the war. The Bush administration and its neoconservative allies have invested too much of their prestige in Petraeus to let someone as tangential to the war effort as the Prime Minister of Iraq get in the way. Remember, Petraeus is the Ulysses S. Grant to Bush's Lincoln, the Creighton Abrams to Bush's... Nixon? Anyway, he's not going anywhere.

What I find most noteworthy about that paragraph is how it evidences the casual disdain for Petraeus that has now become de rigeur for the left. Attacking Petraeus has quickly and almost silently become a core part of the left’s anti-war agenda.

As I said last week, this is a dangerous game for the left. When their Senators begin playing it in September, they’ll find out just how dangerous.

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com

From Michael O'Hanlon's and Kenneth Pollack's op-ed in today's New York Times (HT: RealClearPolitics):

Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.

Read the whole thing.

I will cover conditions in Iraq on today's program with the Times' John Burns.

UPDATE: Tigerhawk and The Belmont Club comment.