Steak vs. Sizzle.

So, Barack Obama goes to Afghanistan, hangs out with the troops, and sez "we need more troops here." Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has been saying this for weeks. He's also said "ain't got any to send, 'cause they're in Iraq."

Then Obama goes to Iraq, hangs out with the troops, and talks to Maliki, the duly-elected leader of a sovereign Iraq. Maliki sez "yeah, 2010, sounds about right for a pull-out of US troops." Prior to Obama's visit, Bush agrees to a "time horizon" for a pullout. In short, the Iraqis want us to leave, the American people want us to leave, The Surge (tm) worked* and things are not going per plan in Afghanistan.

So what are the morning talkers on the TV talking about? Whether Obama disrespected the troops by not visiting our hospital in Germany. This is entirely because the McCain campaign dare not have a discussion on the substance of the trip. McCain dare not have this discussion because his position, of using Iraq as a base for further operations in the Middle East, is both unpopular and unnecessary.

The unpopular part is obvious. Unnecessary because we have other bases in the region, to include Kuwait and the Emirates, and if Iran gets sufficiently frisky to actually need dealing with, well, suddenly we'll have more bases.

But that's substance, and would require asking McCain's talkers questions they don't want to answer, so we can't have that discussion. So, the Straight Talk Express, home of Real Men of Substance, talks about bullshit and vapors.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.  ETA: I'm not interested in a discussion of the correctness of Obama's policies.  My point is that we're not even discussing his policies.


* As I recall, the whole point of The Surge (tm) was to get Iraq stabilized so we could get the hell out.

A second opinion

Retired Navy Warrant Officer Jim Wright weighs in on the latest tempest in a teacup.