Barack Obama Vs. The Washington Post

"Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the 'this-war-is-lost' caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.)." -- The Washington Post

Today, not even a full day after Barack Obama accused discussion of the Surge's success in Iraq as being "spin", The Washington Post editorializes about "The Iraqi Upturn" which flies in the face of Obama's accusations:

Yesterday, Barack Obama Said "We Don't Need Any More Spin About How The Surge Is Succeeding" But "To Recognize Where We Are In Iraq":

Barack Obama: "We don't need more spin about the surge that was supposed to get the Iraqis to step up. We don't need any more spin about how the surge is succeeding in doing what it was supposed to do which was to get the Iraqis to stand up and take responsibility for their own future so we could start bringing our troops home. We don't need more tough talk from George Bush or John McCain, because the Taliban's still fighting in Afghanistan. The terrorists who hit us on 9/11 are still at large. We don't need more leaders who just see what they want to see in Iraq -- it's time to recognize where we are in Iraq." (Barack Obama, Remarks, Rapid City, SD, 5/31/08)

Watch Barack Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5thPwpddUg

Today, The Washington Post In "The Iraqi Upturn" Writes About Where We Are In Iraq:

The Iraqi Upturn
Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.
Editorial
The Washington Post
June 1, 2008

There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Read The Washington Post Editorial