I have wondered why the White House hasn't been making some political hay over the success of the withdrawal timetable in Iraq. But I now see they wanted to roll this news out when people were actually paying attention.
The House approved $33 billion for a 30,000-troop escalation in Afghanistan this week and in doing so took money away from other places it was desperately needed: public schools, green energy and job creation.
Some military analysts agreed with a U.S. Army General's promise that there will be a decline in casualties from IEDs. The public should keep an eye on what happens to determine how much credence to put in Army claims.
This isn't about insider partisan purges and who has beltway money, It's very clear, and it's very mainstream. If you take the outsider, radical position and support the war in Afghanistan, you're toast.
At the same time that Senate Republicans are voicing disagreement over withdrawal timetables when it comes to Afghanistan, we are about to meet a big milestone in our withdrawal timetable for Iraq -- and it doesn't even rate a mention.
Petraeus reiterated that the July 2011 date will not be a moment when U.S. forces "head for the exit and turn out the lights," as U.S. assistance will be required in Afghanistan for "a number of years."
McChrystal's dirty laundry is the least of President Obama's problems. In the face of rapidly rising violence throughout the country, Obama needs to decide how quickly to withdraw U.S. troops from the country.
We are forced into an unfair position of being for or against a successful war in Afghanistan. It's never a good thing to be against something successful, so clearly the only rational choice is to you're for it.