What about Iraq?

Republicans have been surprisingly fierce in opposition to Obama thus far. Barring an unforeseen event that brings the country together, I can't imagine this will taper off much. The GOP can't stand being out of power - which they truly believe is their God given right.

Though I have taken some joy in Obama's screw ups, I certainly don't count the guy out yet. Still, his support among his "non base" is in no way personally connected to him. It is all about results. His fervent base (25-30%? maybe) will follow him anywhere. But the middle that is still giving him the benefit of the doubt will peal away if things don't turn around. And do so quickly. Despite all his P.R. he does not connect on a personal level, like Clinton or FDR. With out the noise of the media at his back he is testy and effete. Again, the kool aid drinkers don't feel this way. But they are hypnotized.

We'll see how things go after the stimulus bill passes.

I do wonder about the other constituency that all Presidents must nurture: the military. No Quarter featured a piece on Iraq yesterday. It reminded me of what I have been saying for over a year: Obama mislead by omission and commission on Iraq - deluding his followers into believing the war would be over quickly. This was, and remains, nonsense. Regardless, even with his shifting stances, the pods willy nilly proclaimed him the "peace" candidate. We'd be out of Iraq quickly if BHO won and the great wrong would be corrected - so the Pod tale went. Tom Ricks author of the compelling Fiasco and the new book The Gamble - thinks otherwise. He says we have 5-10 years left in Iraq and from this corner, I see no other logical - or sane - conclusion.

I still believe the fundamental reason for the invasion was oil - and its macro-implications. We needed a secure base (or bases) in the Middle East to ensure the steady flow of oil to the West. Saudi Arabia is not secure enough. Besides, if we didn't get Iraq's oil - then China just might have. Of course, other reasons for invading were plentiful - but remove oil and the investment required makes an invasion much less appealing. Of course, W and his crew botched the war for years. But the essential reason remains - and we may well come out of it okay in the very long run. "Okay" being relative. We may be bankrupt - check that - WE ARE BANKRUPT - but barring a quick departure - the oil in Iraq will travel west.

I don't think Obama has the cojones to get us out of Iraq quickly. Nor do I think he has the final say. (Yes - there are institutions more powerful in the U.S. than the White House.) General David Petraeus is, almost alone, the brain trust behind Iraq now. From the NQ post: For Petraeus, prevailing in Iraq means extending the war. Thomas E. Ricks concludes that the war is likely to last another five to ten years-and that that outcome is a best case scenario.

For the Code Pink crew who mindlessly drove gasoline powered vehicles to mindless "peace" rallies for Obama - and saw no disconnect - a cold,cold, shower awaits. It is probable that the Lightbringer will stand for re-election in 2012 with the U.S. still fully engaged in Iraq.

It certainly makes Obama's dash to the middle politically explainable. It may be all he has in 2012.

But by then the GOP will be at more than full speed.