It takes a real talent to contradict yourself in your own op-ed.Â In Today’s New York Times, Barack They Call It Mellow Yellow Obama talks about his plan in Iraq.Â In one paragraph:
Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face â€” from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran â€” has grown.
Then the next paragraph:
[Surge] tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda â€” greatly weakening its effectiveness.
So which is it?Â Is Al-Quaeda getting stronger or weaker?Â Are we winning or losing?Â Perhaps my chief problem with Obama is that 9/11 didn’t really have anything to do with either Afghanistan or Iraq.Â We were not attacked by the Taliban government either, they were just sheltering Al-Qaeda.Â But we’re not at war with a country, we’re at war with an ideology.Â I still stand by Steven Den Beste’s analysis of the situation from 5 years ago.Â Even if Al-Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq before we invaded, and there’s evidence that it did in some measure, I don’t think, if you’re battling an ideology rather than a nation, that it’s a horrible idea to enter the heart of the region of the world that spurned that ideology, and fight anyone who wants to adhere to it.Â If Iraq is soundly rejecting Al-Qaeda, because they have been shown for the butchers that they are, I think that’s a good outcome.
UPDATE: Richard Fernandez has more.