… followed by obfuscation. Brilliant! I guess that’s the new and improved Obama version of “The fact of the matter is” followed by a lie.

The Ministry of Truth has spoken.

Obama has moved from his campaign position on the war. To recapitulate, Obama ran against the invasion, the occupation/nation building, AND the surge, taking up the extreme defeatist position.

In the summer of 2008, Obama was forced by the obvious success of the surge to refine his position to admit the success of the surge militarily (the signing of the SOFA and the elections in January demonstrate that it succeeded politically as well). The surge having brought relativ peace and progress to Iraq meant the paradoxical decline of Ithe war as an issue, and its eclipse by the financial crisis in September brought Obama the presidency without having to focus on his campaign promise (which was, essentially and understood by his followers to be a guarantee of our defeat and retreat from Iraq).

As always, Obama’s Iraq policy reflects political reality, that is, he will take the position that most enhances his own status and which carries the least risk to that status. Therefore, he delivered a speech which could have been delivered by Bush or McCain (with a few minor changes, of course.) to praise our military forces and to claim victory. Well, of course he didn’t use the v word. That would mean admitting that Bush was right on the surge and Obama was wrong. that’s politics.

But on sustance:

He declared the mission in iraq a success.

He praised the work of Crocker, Petraeus and Odierno (“two of our greatest generals”).

He praised our troops for their courage and resolve, and the Iraqi people for rising to the occasion by dedicating themselves to their own defense and prosperity.

He praised the Iraqi government, usually disdained as a puppet by the left.

And so on.

As I said at the time of the election — Obma is going to do in Iraq what Petraeus, Odierno and Gates tell him to do. From this speech, and especially the inclusion of Gen Odierno along with his more celebrated peer Petraeus, I think Obama has read Tom Ricks’ book “The Gamble” on the surge (it gives a lot of deserved credit to Odierno, which is one of the few reasons the book is marginally worthwhile…maybe). One of Ricks’ points is how difficult the surge was to execute, both in military terms and in the burden on Petraeus and Crocker to succeed in Iraq while at the same time selling the surge to a Congress that wanted it to fail. Congress does not come off well in Ricks’ book, though he seems to like Obama and overlook his mistakes.

And so we have the vast majority of the troops staying through 2009, to guarantee stability for the next round of elections and other events. I suspect this was Odedierno’s price for signing on.

The very high number of residual troops == 50,000 — was no doubt what Petraeus demanded.

and the 19-month deadline was the compromise given to Obama after asking for 23.

That’s how it works in our system.

Meanwhile, the rest of America and the world will eventually know that we won. And we won gloriously.

Obama knows that. He just can’t figure outhow to take credit for it.

Obama has moved from his campaign position on the war. To recapitulate, Obama ran against the invasion, the occupation/nation building, AND the surge, taking up the extreme defeatist position.

In the summer of 2008, Obama was forced by the obvious success of the surge to refine his position to admit the success of the surge militarily (the signing of the SOFA and the elections in January demonstrate that it succeeded politically as well). The surge having brought relativ peace and progress to Iraq meant the paradoxical decline of Ithe war as an issue, and its eclipse by the financial crisis in September brought Obama the presidency without having to focus on his campaign promise (which was, essentially and understood by his followers to be a guarantee of our defeat and retreat from Iraq).

As always, Obama’s Iraq policy reflects political reality, that is, he will take the position that most enhances his own status and which carries the least risk to that status. Therefore, he delivered a speech which could have been delivered by Bush or McCain (with a few minor changes, of course.) to praise our military forces and to claim victory. Well, of course he didn’t use the v word. That would mean admitting that Bush was right on the surge and Obama was wrong. that’s politics.

But on sustance:

He declared the mission in iraq a success.

He praised the work of Crocker, Petraeus and Odierno (“two of our greatest generals”).

He praised our troops for their courage and resolve, and the Iraqi people for rising to the occasion by dedicating themselves to their own defense and prosperity.

He praised the Iraqi government, usually disdained as a puppet by the left.

And so on.

As I said at the time of the election — Obma is going to do in Iraq what Petraeus, Odierno and Gates tell him to do. From this speech, and especially the inclusion of Gen Odierno along with his more celebrated peer Petraeus, I think Obama has read Tom Ricks’ book “The Gamble” on the surge (it gives a lot of deserved credit to Odierno, which is one of the few reasons the book is marginally worthwhile…maybe). One of Ricks’ points is how difficult the surge was to execute, both in military terms and in the burden on Petraeus and Crocker to succeed in Iraq while at the same time selling the surge to a Congress that wanted it to fail. Congress does not come off well in Ricks’ book, though he seems to like Obama and overlook his mistakes.

And so we have the vast majority of the troops staying through 2009, to guarantee stability for the next round of elections and other events. I suspect this was Odedierno’s price for signing on.

The very high number of residual troops == 50,000 — was no doubt what Petraeus demanded.

and the 19-month deadline was the compromise given to Obama after asking for 23.

That’s how it works in our system.

Meanwhile, the rest of America and the world will eventually know that we won. And we won gloriously.

Obama knows that. He just can’t figure outhow to take credit for it.

I had an interesting comment from a friend, “Obama wants to give us a “pink slip”, we are out of a job” in reply to Obama’s speech at Camp Lejeune. I wonder how many more in our military are discontent with Obama’s policy and I know this is not good for morale of the boots on the ground. .

in the next couple of years. The troubled economy will help them meet recruitment goals, but will the troops stay in, especially those in combat MOSs? I know I started getting nervous about my son’s well-being when the Ds got control of Congress and started actively discouraging him from re-enlisting when it became inevitable that BHO would become President.

The guys in the gun-toting MOSs aren’t going to want to stay in if they’re being sent to bad places with lawyer-written ROEs that will get them killed – and you know that will be the case.