McCain sees victory in Iraq; Obama wants to lose

Weeklystandard.com had an interesting column recently by Matthew Continette called "Iraq has changed. Why can't the Democrats?"

It's kind of neat, because what he writes about is similar to what McCain alluded to by his comments on Memorial Day, that Obama continues to stand firm that he wants to pull troops out of Iraq even while things are changing in Iraq for the better. Should he not use some common sense and reconsider?

That article states that in 2007 when Bush announced the surge, democrats had a right to be pessimistic, considering, "Al Qaeda in Iraq held large swaths of territory. Shiite death squads roamed much of Baghdad. The Iraqi political class seemed feckless."

Obama basically said back then that the idea of the surge would be pointless and ineffective. McCain, on the other hand, was an ardent supporter of the surge.

Now, after the surge has proven to be a major success, McCain looks pretty good, and Obama continues to chant, "We will remove troops from Iraq in 11 months... er, I mean 16 months."

However, by November 2007, Petraeus reported that, "the numbers of violent incidents, civilian deaths, ethnosectarian killings, and car and suicide bombings had declined dramatically from the previous December. Why? The surge--and the broadening 'Awakening' movement, which began when the sheikhs in Anbar province rebelled against al Qaeda in late 2006 and accelerated when the tribal leaders understood America would not abandon them in 2007."

Obama still preaches the mantra that the war is unjust, and that the troops must come home within 11-16 months after he is elected president.

Since then, things have gotten even better in Iraq. Casualties are down 70% since the surge was ordered. "Al Qaeda was virtually limited to the northern city of Mosul," writes Continette. "There were more Iraqi Security Forces, and those forces were increasingly capable. The Iraqi government had passed a variety of laws promoting sectarian reconciliation. And the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, was demonstrating that he was a national leader by meeting with Sunnis and launching military operations against Shiite gangs and Iranian-backed "special groups" in the southern port city of Basra."

Let me put it this way: I'm no expert on the Iraq war other than what I read. I have read the opinions of both democrats, liberals, republicans, conservatives, libertarians, independents and the peanut butter ferry. I respect people for saying the war should not have started in the first place.

However, whether you agree with the reason for going there or not, a lot of good has come out of it. A thug dictator is gone, 22 millionIraqi's are now able to enjoy their God given freedom, and the world is better off in more ways than one. Plus the U.S. has a nice military stronghold right in the middle of the middle east.

Things went horribly wrong in Iraq after this initial War, and they are now back on track. So, when Obama states that he still wants to "surrender," it makes me wonder if he simply wants to lose that war no matter what.

And that's the thought of the day.