Jay Reding.com

Michael Ledeen wonders if the latest Osama bin Laden video shows the real Osama. I have my doubts — the person on this latest video looks somewhat like the terrorist leader, but not entirely. In previous OBL videos, Osama is quite animated — in this one, the speaker is quite sedate.

There seems to be two possibilities. The least likely is that this is a ringer for OBL, who’s dead or incapacitated. The second is that the person on the video us really OBL, but he’s quite sick and unable to match the tenor of his previous messages. The fake-looking beard, the lack of energy, the less poetic rhetoric — if it is OBL, he doesn’t look good.

At The Washington Monthly, Andrew Tilghman makes the argument that al-Qaeda in Iraq is a myth, or at the very least it isn’t nearly as big a part of the overall “insurgency” as it’s made out to be. On the other side, Frederick Kagan gives a detailed look inside the organization and comes to the opposite conclusion.

The problem in determining whether “al-Qaeda in Iraq” is responsible for 8% of attacks in Iraq or 15% of attacks is that it’s hard to pin down exactly what groups are associated with AQI. There isn’t a clear delineation between many of the jihadi groups in Iraq, and the Iraqis themselves tend to use “al-Qaeda” as generic term for Sunni terrorist groups.

However, Tilghman’s conclusions end up undercutting his own argument:

This is not to say that al-Qaeda in Iraq doesn’t pose a real danger, both to stability in Iraq and to security in the United States. Today multiple Iraqi insurgent groups target U.S. forces, with the aim of driving out the occupation. But once our troops withdraw, most Sunni resistance fighters will have no impetus to launch strikes on American soil. In that regard, al-Qaeda—and AQI, to the extent it is affiliated with bin Laden’s network—is unique. The group’s leadership consists largely of foreign fighters, and its ideology and ambitions are global. Al-Qaeda fighters trained in Baghdad may one day use those skills to plot strikes aimed at Boston.

Yet it’s not clear that the best way to counter this threat is with military action in Iraq. AQI’s presence is tolerated by the country’s Sunni Arabs, historically among the most secular in the Middle East, because they have a common enemy in the United States. Absent this shared cause, it’s not clear that native insurgents would still welcome AQI forces working to impose strict sharia. In Baghdad, any near-term functioning government will likely be an alliance of Shiites and Kurds, two groups unlikely to accept organized radical Sunni Arab militants within their borders. Yet while precisely predicting future political dynamics in Iraq is uncertain, one thing is clear now: the continued American occupation of Iraq is al-Qaeda’s best recruitment tool, the lure to hook new recruits. As RAND’s Ali said, “What inspires jihadis today is Iraq.”

The problem with that argument is that the Anbar Awakening has significantly changed the dynamics of the conflict in Iraq. Iraqi Sunnis are rejecting terrorist groups like AQI, Ansar al-Sunnah, etc. and beginning to come together to work within the political process. Sunni rejectionism has only caused them to become a marginalized community in Iraq, and the oppression of al-Qaeda’s furtive attempts at founding an Islamic state has not gone over well with Iraqi Sunnis. Instead of fostering a revolution towards a global Islamic caliphate, AQI and its hangers-on have driven Iraq’s Sunnis towards the US and the Iraqi government.

Regardless of the exact percentage of attacks that are directly attributable to AQI, they still represent a serious threat to US and Iraqi security. The same tactics used to go after AQI apply equally well to other terrorist groups operating in Iraq. The more the divisions grow between AQI and its associated groups and Iraq’s Sunni community, the stronger the chance for a lasting federal system in Iraq.

AQI is not a myth — it may be relatively small in terms of size and number of attacks, but there can be no doubt that it represents a serious threat to Iraq and to the US. To leave Iraq without having smashed that group — or at the very least set up an Iraqi security force capable of stopping them will be to compromise our national security. It still is a fundamentally unsound policy, and our strategy of stabilization must still go forward.

In order to preserve the talking points over the Iraq conflict, Congress has been trying to throw cold water over Gen. Petraeus’ report on the surge in advance of its release next week. However, it looks like those attempts aren’t quite working as intended as a Congressional report has indicated that security really is improving, and if the current trajectory holds the Iraqi Army can start taking significant amounts of responsibility away from the US within 12-18 months:

General James Jones, the retired commandant of the Marine Corps and former NATO commander who headed the commission, described “impressive” but “uneven progress” by Iraqi forces, and “dramatic results” for coalition forces in Anbar Province. There, he said, the changing loyalties of tribal leaders effectively meant that 35,000 to 40,000 fighters once supporting Al Qaeda were now backing the coalition.

But the 12-to-18-month estimate until Iraqi forces gain autonomy, described in the report and by Jones in congressional testimony Thursday, would push back further into the future estimates of when American forces can step back from their leading role.

The finding is the latest in a series of ever-lengthening predictions by American officials about when Iraqi forces might be able to operate independently. Congressional Democrats appear increasingly ready to compromise on their demands for a withdrawal date, but resist any open-ended extension of the military mandate in Iraq.

The “withdraw immediately” contingent of the Democratic Party seems to keep losing out. The impetus for an immediate withdrawal keeps faltering in the face of evidence that the Iraqis are beginning to actively fight off groups like al-Qaeda.

The Democrats have put themselves in a position where success in Iraq is adverse to their interests — which opens them up to the criticism that they are placing partisan politics above the national interest. The fact that good news from Iraq seems so distressing to the Democrats should give one pause. There’s a difference between respectful and reasonable dissent over issues of policy and siding with defeat, and many Democrats continue to cross that line. The short-term advantage may side with the Democrats, but the long-term damage to the reputation of the Democratic Party could be grave.

The Democrats are trying to preserve the narrative, while the pro-surge side (which is increasingly bipartisan) has the benefit of the facts being on their side. There is much to be done in Iraq — especially in terms of political development and reconciliation, but Senator Reid’s bold assertion that the war was “lost” several months ago seems painfully out of date.

The Democrats keep wanting to preserve their narrative of failure in Iraq, but the facts keep making that more and more difficult. Iraq isn’t “won” yet — but it is certainly not “lost” and trying to preemptively negate Gen. Petraeus’ testimony is a foolish move. The military is the most trusted institution in American society today. Congress is the least. When it comes down to who the people will believe, it’s a lot harder to swallow the Congressional failure narrative than it is to listen to someone who’s actually been in the fight and who knows what is really going on in Iraq.

It appears as though Idaho Senator Larry Craig is rethinking his decision to resign from the US Senate. That is, to put it mildly, an incredibly bad idea.

Senator Craig made the decision to resign, which set in motion plans to appoint his successor and allowed the Senator to defend himself (such as he legally can) without the spectacle impacting the people of Idaho and the United States Senate. To try to go back on that promise now will not endear him to anyone. He made his choice, and now he has to live with the consequence of that decision. If he doesn’t like them, he should have thought first.

Senator Craig keeps compounding his situation. He plead guilty but now maintains his innocence. He resigned, but now wants to take it back. Those are not the actions of an honorable man. Senator Craig is proving to be an embarrassment, and it is time that he his political career came to an end. If he truly thinks that his ouster was undeserved, he can certainly try to clear his name and run again. Somehow, I have a feeling that the voters of Idaho will be less than impressed with such a maneuver.

Ron Rosenbaum has an incredibly chilling article that suggests that the Russian Federation has a “doomsday” device that could allow a single individual to launch a massive nuclear strike. The system, code-named “Perimetr” is designed to detect a nuclear impact on Russian soil, and if so detected to await a stand-down order from Moscow. If that order is not received, an individual officer can then launch a responding strike.

With Vladimir Putin continuing to ratchet up tensions by resuming strategic bomber missions from Russian territory, the idea of such a “doomsday weapon” is frightening. We assume that there are command and control systems in place to prevent an accidental nuclear war — yet the safeguards in place for those command systems may not be sufficient to protect us from just such an eventuality.

We live in a world of risk, and while terrorists getting their hands on WMDs remains one of the lead risks we face, a conventional attack is not out of the question. Developing effective countermeasures while working to ratchet down tensions remain just as crucial now as they were 25 years ago when the risk of Soviet attack was a preoccupation of the US military. We would like to think that the days of the Cold War are over, but as Russia once again reaches towards militarism, the day of a nuclear threat from Russia may not be quite over. We should hope that technologies like ballistic missile defenses are not needed, but if they ever are needed, we cannot allow ourselves to be caught in a position where millions of lives are lost due to their absence.

Ed Morrissey strikes the right note in looking at the situation in Iraq, responding to Kimberly Kagan’s very optimistic piece in The Wall Street Journal. Morrissey reminds us:

We’ve seen progress before in Iraq, only to see setbacks later. That’s the nature of war; few conflicts have ever seen one-sided momentum from beginning to end. American experience in war shows this in almost every conflict except perhaps Grenada and Panama. People who know their history understand not to panic when things go poorly for a while. We haven’t yet seen a North Africa-style reversal in this war, nor a Dieppe, Kasserine Pass, or even an Anzio.

It’s also important to take care in snap analyses of success. The enemy adapts, too, and what works for a couple of months may stop working at some point. The best way to keep that from happening is to stay on the offensive, a lesson we finally seemed to have learned in Iraq, but it doesn’t mean we won’t face setbacks. When that happens, we will adapt and overcome.

I think that the present and growing conventional wisdom that the surge has been a substantial success is correct — the security situation in Iraq is getting better, and the roots of that improvement are at the grassroots level. At the same time, it’s far too early to be pronouncing that Iraq has “turned a corner” quite yet. The political situation in Iraq is marked by a lack of progress. Al-Qaeda in Iraq still has some power. The situation with Iranian-backed Shi’ite militias is still a major concern. The situation in Basra is deteriorating in the wake of the UK pullback there. (And Basra provides an example of just what happens when a force pulls back without having established a basis for internal security.) To say that that progress in Iraq is inevitable isn’t true — the primary limitation on progress remains the fickle nature of the American political cycle.

Still, the surge has produced results. The grassroots rejection of al-Qaeda in al-Anbar Province is an incredibly heartening sign — and the fact that it has spread to Diyala and Salah-al-Din is an even more heartening sign. The actions of Iraq’s Sunnis only make sense in the context of a better political situation for them — al-Qaeda gained a foothold in Sunni territory because they promised to defend the Sunnis against the Shi’ite death squads. By rejecting al-Qaeda, the Sunnis have implicitly put their trust in the US and the Iraqi government to restrain the death squads. It’s a major shift for them, and it’s up to us to support the Iraqi government and security apparatus so that we don’t let them down.

There’s cause for optimism about the situation in Iraq — but that should be cautious optimism. For the first time, we’re seeing real grassroots support for a rejection of al-Qaeda and the formation of a federal system in Iraq under a government of national unity. Getting that done will not be easy, however. Al-Qaeda still has every interest in provoking the Shi’a and fomenting civil war in Iraq. However, this could be a turning point for the future of Iraq, and so long as we’re willing to support the Iraqi people in their struggle for peace and security, there is a chance that Iraq can lift itself out of the nightmare of war.

The Detroit Free Press has an editorial wondering if despite all their advantages, the Democrats could still blow it in 2008:

Consider: We have an unpopular Republican president who is struggling to extract some success out of an even-less-popular war that the United States started under a premise that was proved wrong. His fellow Republicans are bailing out of Washington like rats off a sinking ship. Veteran GOP lawmakers are quitting Congress after losing control to the Democrats last year. Investigations and scandals abound…

So 2008 will be a great year to be a Democrat, a cakewalk to power, all the power.

Except that the Democrats have three potential stumbling blocks: Their internal fighting over presidential primaries that could alienate voters in some key states, such as Florida and Michigan; the prospect of nominating a candidate who cannot win, as has happened before; and a backlash in favor of a relatively “safe” Republican presidential candidate by voters who, given recent history, just don’t want one party running everything.

That analysis may prove to be correct come November of next year.

Forget the political situation now. People won’t start seriously paying attention to politics for a year. Anything can change in a year. In 2004, President Bush had just creamed John Kerry. The next year, President Bush couldn’t get elected dog-catcher after bungling just about every major political issue. Politics is always fluid.

Are the Democrats better positioned right now? It’s a virtual certainty. The Republicans are poised to lose seats in the Senate if the election were this year. The House could see more GOP losses. As Bob Novak has been reporting, the GOP’s mood is anything but sunny.

However, a year in politics might as well be an eternity.

The Democrats have an astonishing ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The approval ratings for Congress remain at the same lows that swept the GOP out of power. The likeliest Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, whose commanding leads in the polls put her in unquestioned front-runner status. Yet even the Democrats have their doubts about Hillary. The Catch-22 they face is that the other candidates aren’t any better — Barack Obama has personality, strong oratory, and almost no experience. John Edwards is as much of a phony as John Edward and his “Two Americas” schtick doesn’t work when it’s quite clear he lives in the America with the palatial mansions. The rest of the field has no chance — Joe Biden and Bill Richardson at least have some policy credentials, but no traction in the polls. Could Hillary lose the nomination? Certainly. Does it ultimately help the Democrats? Not so much.

The Democrats are playing to the base, but that doesn’t win elections. On the other hand, the Republicans have a problem with their base, but they’re fielding candidates who could actually capture the center. Rudy Giuliani is about as well positioned as a candidate could be. He’s moderate on social issues, has the leadership skills that Bush has been lacking, and is an anti-corruption candidate in a time when government corruption is the #1 issue. The same can be said of Fred Thompson. Even the second-tier candidates have appeal: John McCain’s anti-pork stance has resonance. Mitt Romney knows how to work a room and has strong executive credentials. The GOP field hasn’t set the base on fire, but has a much better chance of gaining traction with the general electorate than the Democrats.

It could be quite possible that a new crop of strong GOP candidates emerge in the House and Senate and get the aid of a strong GOP candidate’s coattails. It could be that the GOP finally gets its act together and realizes that if they run on a campaign of cutting government waste, fighting corruption, and strong national defense, 2008 can be a much better election for the Republicans than they realize. The Democrats are already doing whatever they can to squander their advantage.

The Democrats shouldn’t be counting their chickens before they hatch, nor should the Republicans give in to despair. A year is a long time in politics, and anything can change. 2008 could be a Democratic sweep, but that is not assured — the Republicans can rediscover their principles and start making a strong stand for their values. The Democrats are running against a man who will not be running for office again, and their message is relentlessly negative. The GOP can win — indeed, they should win. The real question is whether the GOP will stand and fight. If they do, the dynamics of the 2008 race could be very different from where they stand now.