Maybe this will cheer up Bobby Gibbs: I'm not singling out Obama for this. I firmly believe that anyone we elected would have supported this endless war -- the economic and political systems of the elite are too intertwined for anyone to even think about ending it completely:

Reporting from Besmaya, Iraq —
Iraq will need U.S. military support for up to another decade to defend its borders because the Iraqi army won't be ready to guard the country when American troops leave at the end of 2011, according to U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

Commanders say they are reasonably confident in the Iraqi security forces' ability to keep order while facing insurgents or other internal threats. But when it comes to their capacity to protect against attacks from other nations, it is inconceivable that the Iraqi army will be able to stand alone by the time U.S. troops go home, said Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, commander of the U.S. military training program in Iraq.

Almost certainly, he said, there will have to be some form of continued U.S. military presence beyond 2011 — a tough sell for Americans eager to see a rapid withdrawal — to protect against external threats and to provide the training necessary to eventually bring the Iraqi army up to scratch.

The gravest concern may be Iraq's inability to defend its airspace in a region bristling with missiles and fighter planes as well as longstanding jealousies and a history of wars involving border disputes. The Iraqi government placed its first order for 18 U.S. F-16 fighter jets in March, but the earliest they're expected to arrive is 2013.

"I would say we're five years into a 10-15 year program," said Brig. Gen. Scott Hanson, who heads the U.S. mission in charge of training the Iraqi air force. "We're on a glide path, but we're not in the final stages of approach."

No getting around it: This really is Obama's war. I read yesterday that U.S. spokesmen were giving contradictory versions of this operation to different reporters, so as with any war, I'd take everything you read with a grain of salt. (By the way, I notice this outpost is named Belleau Wood, after one of the bloodiest battles of World War I. Is that supposed to be good for morale?)

The largest military offensive of the eight-year war in Afghanistan, launched this weekend in southwestern Helmand province, is a crucial test for President Obama's strategy of more troops, more civilians and more money.

In an acknowledgment of past mistakes, administration officials have emphasized that for the first time, U.S. and NATO forces are outnumbered by thousands of Afghan soldiers fighting alongside them. Unlike previous offensives, in which territory won from insurgents was later abandoned, the troops plan to clear the Taliban stronghold of Marja and hold it for as long as it takes to install a functioning local security system and government.

Large numbers of Afghan and international civilians have been marshaled to move into the district once the fighting is over, and development projects are funded and ready for implementation.

"What's important about this operation is that it is the first major operation in which we will demonstrate, I think successfully, that the new elements of the strategy -- which combine not only security operations but economic reform and good governance at the local and regional level with a much more visible presence of Afghan forces -- will take place," Obama's national security adviser, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones, said on "Fox News Sunday."

The consequences of neglecting Afghanistan and the resurgent Taliban are apparent.

NYTimes:

A well-coordinated assassination attempt on President Hamid Karzai by suspected Taliban insurgents at the Afghan national day military parade in central Kabul has turned into a moment of national embarrassment for the government, which has been pressing to take over responsibility for Kabul’s security from foreign troops.

Three people were killed Sunday in the brazen assault, ruining what was supposed to have been a proud moment for Afghan security forces. The ability of the attackers to get so close to Mr. Karzai, who escaped unhurt, suggested they had inside help.

Considering President Bush recently admitted that it's "probably true" the next attack will come from Afghanistan, this really doesn't surprise me. But it does worry me.

Download | play Download | play

Flippity, floppity, flip, flop. Just like a fish on the deck of a boat, John McCain is gasping for the life of his campaign. Knowing full well that tying his campaign to staying in Iraq and the "success" of the "surge" (quick, McCain, explain what that means!) and that the majority of Americans just aren't willing to buy it, McCain executes a perfect "cut and run" from his earlier statement of staying in Iraq for 100 years.

By the way, that reminds me of that “100 year thing”. My friends, the war will be over soon. The war, for all intents and purposes, although the insurgency will go on for years and years and years. But it will be handled by the Iraqis, not by us.

Huh? The war will be "over soon"??? Mission Accomplished redux? But the insurgency will go on. But that's not a war. But the Iraqis will handle it. Aren't the insurgents Iraqis too? Can anyone make heads or tails of this ridiculous excuse of a back pedal?

How in the hell does McCain think he can get away with this?

Download | play Download | play (h/t Scarce)

Following Wednesday night's CNN/YouTube Republican debate, recent CNN arrival Campbell Brown hosted a special entitled Campaign Killers, which dealt with the negative nature of campaign advertising in American politics. Unfortunately, Brown decided to do some dirty and rather offensive campaigning herself, referring to MoveOn.org as "American Insurgents."

More from Media Matters:

BROWN: General David Petraeus made his reputation taking on insurgents in Iraq. But when he came to Capitol Hill in September, he was confronted by American insurgents, a liberal anti-war group called MoveOn.org. MoveOn bought this full-page ad in The New York Times. It accused Petraeus of betraying us by cooking the books on progress in Iraq. Read on...

Via CBS News:

Tensions in the Texas House boiled over in a parliamentary showdown between Republican House Speaker Tom Craddick and some GOP and Democratic insurgents.

It was a moment that has been building for weeks, with House members defiantly challenging the leader they put in power. Dissatisfaction has been building and on Friday night frustration turned into anger.

Craddick survived a five-hour rebellion on the House floor that included a bold attempt to boot him from office, the physical restraint of insurgent lawmakers trying to overtake the speaker's podium, and the House parliamentarian nearly pushed to tears before resigning.

Republican Rep. Fred Hill, who has filed his candidacy to replace Craddick, made a parliamentary request that would allow the 150-member chamber to vote to oust Craddick.

Craddick refused to recognize Hill to make the motion. Read more...

It's time for the grammar police:

All too often, reporters and politicians use the passive voice. Take British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett in yesterday's USA Today: ""It's widely argued now that the existence of the camp is as much a radicalizing and discrediting influence as it is a safeguard for security." Well, who argues? A McClatchy story yesterday read, "Nearly 2,700 Iraqi civilians were killed in the city in September." Well, who killed them? Baathist insurgents or Iranian-backed militias? If the public read that Iranian-backed militias killed nearly 2700 civilians, we might be less willing to reward their murderers.

Really I'm speechless. The cheerleaders of this war are relegated to becoming the spell checkers of the media. Hell, 2700 civilians died, whose fault is it?Just blame the media folks. Maybe, just maybe it's Bush's fault because he attacked a country that didn't attack us. I'm just saying.

Why Oh Why Are We Ruled by These Fools? (Yet Another Bush-in-Iraq Edition)

Bruce Moomaw writes:

Something else, though, that the Marines had expected to see [besides the junk left behind by the insurgents, which does include large amounts of weaponry] was nowhere to be found: the remains of the insurgents that the tanks had been sent in to destroy. "I was hoping that as we searched these houses, we would find dead bodies,' Captain Omohundro said. Where the insurgents ended up is not known.

Under the circumstances, I rather doubt that they were killed and then their corpses were dragged away by their comrades while they left the weapons behind. Phil Carter provides more good reason to think that the estimates we're now seeing of "1000 to 1600 insurgents killed" in Fallujah are pure wishful fairy tales: Slate . And, as Carter and others have pointed out elsewhere, there's lots and lots and lots of replacement weapons for them left lying around Iraq and unguarded by us -- 400,000 tons, to quote the Pentagon itself.

Kevin Sites speaks out!

The journalist who took the video footage of the marine shooting!

"Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all."

Kevin Sites Please read the full text.

This is only an excerpt.

I see an old man in a red kaffiyeh lying against the back wall. Another is face down next to him, his hand on the old man's lap -- as if he were trying to take cover. I squat beside them, inches away and begin to videotape them. Then I notice that the blood coming from the old man's nose is bubbling. A sign he is still breathing. So is the man next to him.

While I continue to tape, a Marine walks up to the other two bodies about fifteen feet away, but also lying against the same back wall.

Then I hear him say this about one of the men:

"He's fucking faking he's dead -- he's faking he's fucking dead."

Through my viewfinder I can see him raise the muzzle of his rifle in the direction of the wounded Iraqi. There are no sudden movements, no reaching or lunging. However, the Marine could legitimately believe the man poses some kind of danger. Maybe he's going to cover him while another Marine searches for weapons.

Instead, he pulls the trigger. There is a small splatter against the back wall and the man's leg slumps down.

"Well he's dead now," says another Marine in the background.

I am still rolling. I feel the deep pit of my stomach. The Marine then abruptly turns away and strides away, right past the fifth wounded insurgent lying next to a column. He is very much alive and peering from his blanket. He is moving, even trying to talk. But for some reason, it seems he did not pose the same apparent "danger" as the other man -- though he may have been more capable of hiding a weapon or explosive beneath his blanket....

But then two other marines in the room raise their weapons as the man tries to talk. For a moment, I'm paralyzed still taping with the old man in the foreground. I get up after a beat and tell the Marines again, what I had told the lieutenant -- that this man -- all of these wounded men -- were the same ones from yesterday. That they had been disarmed treated and left here...

At that point the Marine who fired the shot became aware that I was in the room. He came up to me and said, "I didn't know sir-I didn't know." The anger that seemed present just moments before turned to fear and dread.

In the particular circumstance I was reporting, it bothered me that the Marine didn't seem to consider the other insurgents a threat -- the one very obviously moving under the blanket, or even the two next to me that were still breathing.

I can't know what was in the mind of that Marine. He is the only one who does.

But observing all of this as an experienced war reporter who always bore in mind the dark perils of this conflict, even knowing the possibilities of mitigating circumstances -- it appeared to me very plainly that something was not right. According to Lt. Col Bob Miller, the rules of engagement in Falluja required soldiers or Marines to determine hostile intent before using deadly force. I was not watching from a hundred feet away. I was in the same room. Aside from breathing, I did not observe any movement at all.

Suicide Bomber Kills 12 in Attack on Iraqi Police

By Andrew Marshall

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A suicide car bomber plowed into policemen waiting to collect their salaries at a police station west of Ramadi Monday, killing 12 people in the latest insurgent attack on Iraq (news - web sites)'s beleaguered security forces. At least 10 people were wounded in the blast, and 90 percent of the casualties were policemen, said Nazar al-Hiti, a doctor in the town of Hit around 125 miles west of Baghdad, where the dead and wounded were taken.

In Baghdad, a roadside bomb exploded as a U.S. patrol went past, killing two American soldiers and wounding three. Thirteen U.S. soldiers and two foreign civilians were also wounded in a mortar attack south of Baghdad. At least 968 U.S. troops have been killed in action in Iraq and 9,000 have been wounded, most of them seriously.

Insurgents trying to drive out U.S.-led soldiers and topple the U.S.-backed government of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi have repeatedly attacked Iraqi police and soldiers.