Conservative Donnybrook

The Russkies have reportedly been in contact with the communists is Cuba concerning nuclear bombers.  Sources inside fascist Russia have indicated that the two long time allies may agree to place strategic nuclear bombers on the Caribbean island as a way to “counter” the proposed missile shield Washington plans for eastern Europe.  

Power-hungry and wanting to appear dangerous, the Russian government sees the threat of nuclear war as a reasonable response to defensive installations in Europe.  Even isolationist paleo-conservatives will have to agree that a nuclear Cuba is unacceptable.  But how to prevent it?  A naval blockade will not work this time.  An air blockade would work only if the U.S. is prepared to destroy Russian aircraft, a clear act of war.  The hope is that the Russians, once again, are bluffing. 

However, an effective way to counter act this threat would be to blockade Cuba itself.  This means no foreigin tourism, no foreign investments and no trade would be allowed with Cuba.  This, of course would be a declaration which would have to be enforced by the United States.  A longer-range, more productive plan would be the creation of an economic Monroe doctrine I have advocated for in the past, though this would not fix the immediate problem, it would help to turn away most of central and south America’s, as well as the Caribbean’s, pink tide (an old article).

As advertised, the inevitable has occurred: Obama has conceded victory in Iraq.

In essence, Obama has declared the war in Iraq all but over. “There is security progress,” he said during yesterday’s news conference in Amman, Jordan. “Now we need a political solution.” While a diminished U.S. force under his presidency would continue to protect U.S. personnel, target terrorists and provide training, he said, it would be up to Baghdad to consolidate the victory by “setting up a government that is working for the people.”

Obama’s insistence on bringing the troops home within 16 months necessitated his finding that Iraq was stable during his visit. He can now argue that a continued American presence in Iraq would be counterproductive, which might even be true to a point. However, he misses the point that his telegraphing of the American troop drawdown brings with it the risk that whatever insurgency may still exist will simply wait us out. Plus, it is quite possible that so rigid a redeployment will leave the Iraqi military in a position where we are committed to leave before they are truly ready to assume the role that Obama would thrust upon them. A more flexible approach, with a general commitment to turn over the security of Iraq to Iraqis, as McCain suggests, would be a much safer route and would allow for the inevitable screwballs that war tends to serve up.

The only question was whether anyone would connect his late consession with his prior opposition to the strategy which brought us to this point. (Ramirez nailed it!) It is nice that Obama can rely on the fruits of the sound strategy of President Bush and General Petraeus. Had it been up to Obama, our troops would have left Iraq with their tails between their legs, smarting from defeat in an “unwinnable war.” The forces of radical jihad would have enjoyed a large feather in their caps after chasing the Great Satan out of the Fertile Crescent. Emboldened, they would have exploited that situation to recruit even more terrorists who would take the fight to the Americans. And this world would be more dangerous than it is.

UPDATE: It seems that Obama was asked by the MSM whether, in retrospect, he would change his vote against the surge:

The freshman senator, who is currently in the middle of a worldwide public-relations campaign to make himself look more presidential, told ABC News’ Terry Moran that he still would have voted against the troop surge in Iraq even knowing what he knows today.

He is now starting to take a bit of heat for that position.