Killing Fields

The Politics of War. Obama misrepresents McCain's position again. McCain fires back:

Responding to Obama's frequent mocking of McCain's suggestion that U.S. troops might remain in Iraq for 100 years, the Republican nominee-in-waiting said the Illinois senator failed to understand that America has kept forces in Korea, Japan, Germany and Kuwait long after wars in each country ended.

"In all due respect, it displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history, of how we've maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism," McCain told reporters on his campaign plane.

"And I understand that, because he has no experience or background in any of it," McCain added.

Democrats missing the bigger picture--Charles Krauthammer in the Trib today:

I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait. Why? Because our presence provides stability for the entire Gulf and for vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (a war critic) suggested that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)[snip]

As McPeak once said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate."

But don't expect consistency from Barack Obama. Don't expect greatness. Bret Stephens, WSJ, poses a few questions for Obama:

Yet what distinguishes Mr. McCain's foreign policy from Mr. Obama's is not about the nature of America's commitments in the Middle East. It is about their understanding of the consequences of defeat. Mr. McCain seems to have some. It's not clear whether Mr. Obama does.

In his speech, Mr. Obama rightly observes the paradox of Mr. McCain's position on Iraq. The Arizonan, he notes, argued in 2006 that the U.S. could not withdraw because "violence was up," whereas now he argues the U.S. cannot withdraw "because violence is down." "Success," says the Illinois senator, "comes to be defined as the ability to maintain a flawed policy indefinitely."

A fair point. But here are questions for Mr. Obama: Could there be something worse than the indefinite maintenance of a flawed policy? What if, following a U.S. withdrawal, Iraq collapsed into chaos? What if U.S. embassy personnel have to be helicoptered to safety from the roof of the Baghdad embassy? It's not as if this hasn't happened before.

The other day we remembered the life of Dith Pran at his death. He was a survivor of the post-Vietnam killing fields in Cambodia. There are al Qaeda killing fields in Iraq:

The eyes of the volunteers were a mixture of fatigue and trauma after just two hours each day – the horror of al-Qaida's rule had revisited them in a particularly brutal fashion. And the discarded clothing found nearby – including children's clothing – held the promise of things to come.

Think about that Barack.

P.S. Prime Minister Maliki and Iraqi troops mopping up the remains of Sadr's Mahdi Army in Basra and Baghdad, with our help. Bill Roggio. And Chris Muir today.

UPDATE: WaPo worried, "as rivals battle" McCain is moving to transform his "ragtag" primary campaign into a general election machine. The Valley Forge imagery works for me.

UPDATE: Rasmussen, electoral college vote a toss-up between Dems and the GOP:

Recent state polling shows potentially competitive races in Washington, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin. (see summary of recent state-by-state results).

RCP average here.