SECOND EVENING POST:  JULY 21,  2008

Posted at 10:33 p.m. ET

GENERAL OBAMA

General of the Army Barack Hussein Obama Jr. has now granted an interview with ABC in which he expounds on his military plans for Iraq.  It's good to hear from a man who's led the American military in so many successful battles. 

After meeting with top U.S. military commanders and members of the Iraqi government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., today said his opposition to the surge and support for a firm timetable for the withdrawal of troops hasn't changed.

In an exclusive interview, Obama told "Nightline" that if elected president, "we're going to begin to phase out our troops."

Obama is seeing a vastly different Iraq than the one he saw when he last visited more than two years ago. Violence and American casualties are way down, and the streets of Baghdad are bustling again.

So far this month, five U.S. troops have been killed in combat, compared with 78 U.S. deaths last July. Attacks across the country are down more than 80 percent. Still, when asked if knowing what he knows now, he would support the surge, the senator said no.

What?  Is this a serious candidate for president?  He's basically rejecting a superbly executed, and spectacularly successful, military operation.  Must make the troops feel great.  Must make the families of casualties feel even greater. 

When asked if he is committed to winning the war in Iraq, Obama said, "I don't think we have any choice. We have to win the broader war against terror that threatens America and its interests. I think that Iraq is one front on that war, but I think the central front is in Afghanistan and in the border regions of Pakistan."

A simple "yes" might have been appropriate.

Obama does concede there's been progress in Iraq.  But, get this:

However, Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of "political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. ... The point I was making at the time was the political dynamic was the driving force in that sectarian violence."

You know, Barack, there's a time to shut up.  Did it ever occur to this chap that the political changes came as a result of the improved security situation - made possible by the surge?

Obama is also concerned about cost.

"If we're spending 10 billion a month over the next four or five years, that's 10 billion a month we're not using to rebuild the U.S., or drawing down our national debt, or making sure that families have health care," he said. "So, these are all trade-offs the next president is going to have to make."

Under that logic, we shouldn't have fought World War II.  All those bridges that didn't get built because we were sidetracked defeating fascism!

I just don't get any feeling of confidence in Obama.  He gives me the impression of someone who makes up policy as he goes along.  And it would have been nice if he'd devoted some personal praise to Gen. Petraeus, whose vision turned Iraq around, just as Creighton Abrams turned Vietnam around, and got not a single word of praise for it.

Not a way of retaining our best officers.

July 21, 2008.      Permalink          

EVENING POST:  JULY 21,  2008 

Posted at 10:23 p.m. ET

INTERNET JIHADISTS

I just returned from a briefing by Menahem Milson, the chairman of MEMRI, the Middle East Media Research Institute, an indispensable group that translates what Arab leaders, broadcasters and journalists say in Arabic to their own people.  Before MEMRI was launched ten years ago, we depended on statements made in English, directed at the West, that often had no relationship to what was being said to Arabs in their own language.  Yasir Arafat was particularly notorious for saying one thing in English to us, and saying the opposite in Arabic.

Milson reported that there are now about 500 Jihadist websites, many posting material, like incitement to violence, that is not protected by the First Amendment.  The sites are important to the radical Jihadists because they give followers confidence and a sense of belonging.  However, Milson also said that there's been some success in getting these sites blacked out.  They depend on the same Internet Service Providers that we all use to stay on the internet.  These providers have no financial incentive to support those sites, and are often happy to cut their service if, say, a civic group, points out the hateful nature of their content. 

You can learn from MEMRI by going to www.memritv.org, or www.memri.org.  Some of the material, especially the TV clips, is stunning.  You will see what people in some Mideast countries are being fed every day. Often it is pure hate - hate for America, hate for Christianity, hate for Judaism.  But remember, on some American college campuses this is simply considered "another narrative."  That is a major part of the problem.

You will also see Arab reformers.  They are a critical part of the story.

July 21, 2008.       Permalink            

AFTERNOON POST:  JULY 21,  2008

Posted at 3:09 p.m. ET

TRACKERS - OBAMA BOOST

It may be one day and one poll, but Barack Obama has received a big boost in the latest Gallup tracker.  Gallup now has Obama up six over McCain.  He had him up three yesterday.  As reported earlier, Rasmussen's result doesn't reflect that boost.  He has Obama up only one today.

It will take several days before we know if the Gallup boost is real, or just statistical noise.  If it's real, it might be a reaction to Obama's overseas trip. 

The Rasmussen analysis contained this little gem, as called to my attention by reader Richard Hirschman:

A growing percentage of voters also believe that most reporters are trying
to help Obama win the election. Forty-nine percent (49%) hold that view
while only 14% believe reporters are trying to help McCain. Other data shows
that voters tend to think reporters are trying to make both the economy and
Iraq seem worse than they really are.

People do catch on.

July 21, 2008.      Permalink          

MONDAY:  JULY 21,  2008

Posted at 6:54 a.m. ET

AN INFORMED SOURCE

One of the pleasures of running Urgent Agenda is receiving private information from readers in a position to know.  Among our best sources is a knowledgeable American working in Afghanistan.  Our source sends the following message about our situation there.  This is lengthy, but well worth reading.  You don't get this kind of detail from the mainstream media:

Look for a surge-like effort here soon, especially as Petraeus takes command of Central Command and is responsible for both wars.  The problem, of course, is NATO, which in Afghanistan is proving to be more trouble than it's worth. Many European contingents are not allowed by their governments to fight and must be consigned to the stable north.  Yet they must all have a seat at the table for setting overall policy.  
 
We have also had a big PR problem here.  No matter who we kill with air strikes, the claim is that we have hit and killed peaceful, law-abiding civilians.  Many people are eager to believe this, especially because the Russians were so indiscriminate when they were here.  The longer we are here, the more we get equated with that sorry episode.  As usual there are deceivingly close parallels between the two case studies.  The differences far outweigh the similarities (diverse coalition, sincere benevolence, willingness to leave, extraordinary [though not always successful] efforts to avoid civilian casualties), but those who wish us ill are ham-handedly but effectively painting us as bad guys.  
 
The real key is to build up the Afghanis as quickly as possible and turn it over to them.  It will take quite some time.  Here's one little indicator: When I have flown over Kabul, I have not seen a single high-rise crane.  Wherever I have been in the world, these cranes are the sign that the outside world is ready to re-engage.  Until you see such signs as these, the grinding poverty, corruption, and squalor of this place will foil many of our best efforts.
 
Of course, you know how dedicated, disciplined and selfless US troops are, as are most of our NATO compatriots.   Nevertheless, it may be a much bigger problem than even that of Iraq.  At least Iraq's army had some resemblance to a modern Army and Iraq's infrastructure, though heavily damaged, at least provided some foundation for improvement.  This place is, in so many places, absolutely desolate...so many stretches of harsh, barren wilderness.  Desert, craggy mountains, deep wadis, no roads - by far the toughest terrain I have ever seen.  The American military continues to astound as it operates in this territory, playing all required roles:  engineers, contractors, policemen, negotiators, cajolers, disciplinarians, trainers, pilots, politicians, and financiers.  

One question that seems of interest to all who visit:  is the Pakistani ISI up to mischief in Afghanistan?  Are they turning a blind eye to the Taliban and AQ within their own borders and actively supporting them in Afghanistan?  I have no evidence either way, but I do know that experienced Afghanis, who have survived much and seen it all, sure do think so.  It will be interesting to see what tack Petraeus takes; his counterinsurgency manual absolutely hammers home the idea that no insurgency can flourish without a sanctuary, and no insurgency can be defeated while it has a sanctuary.  Short of invading Pakistan, how will we seal a border that is long, porous, and filled with incredibly difficult terrain that our enemy knows very well?  Will we continue to daintily observe the niceties of international borders while our enemy crosses them with impunity and ease?  Possibly the key to this conflict is how we address this problem.
 
Here's a slice of life:
 
I accompanied a party to reconnoiter one of the few highways in Afghanistan.  This particular stretch had become famous because it is becoming "IED Alley" and commercial traffic could not flow along it.  The government was looking to increase the number of soldiers and police patrolling the area because the Taliban are getting bolder.  Last month they burned 40 "jingle" trucks in one rest area. (Jingle trucks are brightly painted, almost in a 60s VW van hippy style, and have all sorts of feathers and trinkets hanging off them as talismans.)  Rest area is a very loose term:  patch of dirt on side of road.
 
The day began with our entourage tearing off unannounced and unrehearsed.  We tore through the city in traffic that is unimaginable:  livestock, motorcycles, pedestrians, trucks, carts, donkey-drawn wagons, vans with children barely clinging to the sides.  No lights, no lines, no signs, no cops.  Honking, swerving, narrowly missing all of the above, we finally squirted out of the city.  The landscape quickly becomes almost lunar, except for the greenery that clings to the shallow creeks and rivers that almost run through the valleys.  After a few miles the scars of IEDs became obvious, huge craters in the beautifully asphalted roads donated by the IC (International Community).  No one is going to repair them soon.  We also came across burnt-out hulks, some of which looked quite recent.
 
We would stop periodically and gather to discuss the local situation and terrain. We gathered together in a tight ball that could have been taken out with one mortar round.  I tried to get the security detail to disperse and set up a perimeter oriented outward, but after a few minutes they would all recongregate. Occasionally we clambered up a nearby hillock, the lightly equipped Afghans scampering ahead of me, burdened with 50 extra pounds of armored vest, ammunition and helmet.  Then, back into the vehicles (light SUVs, no armor, no armament) and off to the next checkpoint.  
 
We worked our way down the road for five hours, passing small villages, consisting of mud-walled compounds and populated by exotically clothed and coiffed villagers.  I could not detect any consistent native garb.  Western jeans, cloaks, pajamas, turbans, fez, baseball caps, burqas, dresses, you name it.  We finally ended in a vacant field where we lunched on fresh watermelon and the most delicious peaches I have ever tasted.  Then, seemingly out of nowhere, an ancient Russian helicopter landed to cart us back to basel.
 
As the helicopter took off, it groaned and strained and was finally coaxed into the air.  It was 60s vintage and had clearly been through its paces. We made it back without incident, but I noticed my Afghani compadres emphatically doing their version of crossing themselves when we landed.

Well, that's all for now.  There is hope here, but look to Afghanistan for news in the next month or so.  This is the height of the Afghan campaign season and Ramadan is quickly approaching.  The Taliban, and their sponsors, will be looking to land a few hard blows in the coming weeks.

We thank our source and look forward to further reports.

July 21, 2008.      Permalink          

HIMSELF

Conservative criticism of Barack Obama is common, but we're beginning to see liberal commentators express concern about Saint Barack's out-of-control ego, something that has been on vivid display, and is likely to grow worse this week when he speaks to the adoring masses in Berlin, recalling Kennedy, Reagan, and maybe some other guys who've used Berlin as a backdrop.  Joan Vennochi of the veddy liberal Boston Globe, lands some appropriate blows: 

JUST LIKE the Obama girl, Obama has a crush on Obama.

Barack Obama always was a larger-than-life candidate with a healthy ego. Now he's turning into the A-Rod of politics. It's all about him.

He's giving his opponent something other than issues to attack him on: narcissism.

A convention hall isn't good enough for the presumptive Democratic nominee. He plans to deliver his acceptance speech in the 75,000 seat stadium where the Denver Broncos play. Before a vote is cast, he's embarking on a foreign policy tour that will use cheering Europeans - and America's top news anchors - as extras in his campaign. What do you expect from a candidate who already auditioned a quasi-presidential seal with the Latin inscription, "Vero possumus" - "Yes, we can"?

Ouch.  It's so hurtful.

Obama finds criticism of his wife "infuriating" and doesn't want either of them to be the target of satire. Tell that to the Carters, the Reagans, the Clintons, and the Bushes, father and son.

There's no such thing as a humble politician. But when Obama looks into the mirror, he doesn't just see a president; he sees JFK.

But it's a wonderful, secret mirror, given only to the anointed.  Don't you understand, Joan?

McCain has one thing going for him: the appearance of modesty.

Part of it is physical. McCain is stiff and awkward, the result of age and injuries from his years as a prisoner of war. That, too, is a contrast to Obama's sleek physique, the consequence of youth and a George W. Bush-like passion for working out.

But with McCain, there's also the sense of a man who made mistakes in life and acknowledges them.

McCain's humility comes through in his book, "Faith of my Fathers," which he wrote at age 63, after completing a career in the US Navy and moving onto politics. Obama wrote the more self-reverential "Dreams from My Father," after he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review.

But when one realizes that oneself is wonderful, why wait to let the world know?

And finally...

When the Obama Girl video first surfaced, Obama told the Associated Press, "You do wish people would think about what impact their actions have on kids and families."

That's good advice. He should think more about the impact of his ego on voters.

A presidential candidate is supposed to get bigger on the national stage. That doesn't mean his head should, too.

Why that's the kind of assault normally reserved for right-wing targets.  Will we see more liberal writers noticing that their candidate believes a bit too much in himself?  I think we will, but don't count on The New York Times. 

July 21, 2008.      Permalink          

FASHION STATEMENT

When one travels with the anointed one, one follows certain rules.  And the royal staff is eloquent in stating its requests. From The Politico:

Politico's Carrie Budoff Brown, accompanying Obama on his trip to the Middle East and Europe, emails:

Reporters traveling overseas with Sen. Barack Obama were thrown a bit of curve last week when the campaign emailed a “dress code” for Israel and Jordan. Aides had passed along as a courtesy the list that they had distributed to their staff to follow.

But some of the tips raised a few eyebrows, particularly among the female reporters.

“Do not wear green.” (Explained later as the color of Hamas)

“Do not wear nail polish.”

“Women should only wear a limited amount of jewelry.”

“Shoulders and arms must be fully covered (no strapless tops, no tank tops, no short sleeve shirts.)"

“Closed-toe shoes, women should also wear stockings.”

At historical and religious sites, a suit or slacks should be worn, shoulders and arms must be covered (“no strapless tops, no tanks tops no short sleeve shirts”), shoes might need to be removed, and women may be asked to cover their heads and “should be prepared with a scarf/pashmina,” the email stated.

I'm surprised they didn't ban the American flag.  But there's time yet.

Look, I guess they're trying to be culturally sensitive, but the whole aura of the Obama campaign is increasingly condescending.  I honestly don't know how the McCain group can exploit this, except simply to point it out or allow a few brave columnists to do it.  But I don't think we've seen a campaign quite like this, and I'm not sure the average American will like it.

July 21, 2008.      Permalink