Teribus--

1) You conveniently ignore the fact that the UK contingent in the "Coalition" in Iraq is already down from its peak. For some reason the UK doesn't believe that it's worth putting yet more troops in Iraq to support the "surge". Now I wonder why that is. It couldn't possibly be since the UK leadership doesn't believe it's worth it for the result--or worth the grief they would get from their own electorate if they tried it--now could it?

2) You tell us that if we pull our combat troops out of "rump Iraq" we are in grave danger of consigning Iraq to domination by Iran. Yet one of the reasons for Maliki's current temporary popularity is that he is seen as standing up to Iran--WSJ 13 June 2008. Gee, that doesn't fit with your analysis. I wonder why.

3) You also tell us how popular the US is in Iraq. Yet one of the other main reasons for Maliki's current popularity is that he is seen as standing up to the US against US pressure for permanent bases in Iraq. That doesn't fit your description of the situation either.

Gee, that's 2 strikes against you. Sure sounds like your crystal ball is getting cloudier with every posting.

And with your ego-bound insistence, against all sense and evidence, that there was no propaganda campaign to get the US public to back Bush's planned Iraq war--as per the past 500-plus postings---I'd say that's 3 strikes-- you're definitely out---way out.

But you still continue to be entertaining--if close to a perfect negative indicator. So if you denigrate Obama's foreign policy ideas, that's high praise for him--please keep it up.