Iraq
The news out of Iraq of late has certainly been troubling: July was the most violent month in the country since 2008 (although the U.S. disputes this claim), the country's electrical system is still a shambles, and there's no government in sight.
This is, in other words, not exactly the time to take a victory lap. And yet, that's what President Obama appears to be doing with a speech planned for today:
'â??As a candidate for president, I pledged to bring the war in Iraq to a responsible end,â? Mr. Obama says in remarks prepared for delivery Monday to the Disabled American Veterans in Atlanta. â??Shortly after taking office, I announced our new strategy for Iraq and for a transition to full Iraqi responsibility. And I made it clear that by August 31, 2010, Americaâ??s combat mission in Iraq would end. And that is exactly what we are doing â?? as promised, on schedule.â? '
None of this would be problematic except for the decision to leave 50,000 U.S. troops behind to "advise and assist" Iraq's security forces. But what happens if things go south? It's not like the situation in Iraq can't deterioate right under our noses. That makes the current "hands-off" approach taken by the administration all the more confounding: if you're going to keep U.S. troops inside the country, shouldn't you at least devote more diplomatic capital to moving Iraq's parties into forming a government? And if the U.S., with tens of thousands of troops inside the country, has no leverage over the political parties - why, exactly, are we keeping our troops around to "advise and assist" them?
UPDATE: You can view the State Department's latest Iraq Status Report here. (pdf)
(AP Photo)