Anchoring Obama's Trip

"McCain has not previously advocated sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. When a reporter asked June 30 whether the United States had enough resources to fight a resurgent Taliban and al-Qaeda, McCain said yes."

Baltimore Sun: "One day after his Democratic rival proposed an escalation of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Republican presidential candidate John McCain called for a surge of as many as 15,000 troops to address the deteriorating security situation there."

Boston Globe: "McCain, who earlier in the campaign suggested using more NATO and Afghan forces to fight the resurgent Taliban, said for the first time that he would support sending about 15,000 more troops to Afghanistan, while not specifying how many would come from the United States."

Well, I spoke too soon. The NYT leads with Barack, with McCain in the third graf:

"Senator Barack Obama said on Tuesday that the addition of tens of thousands of combat troops to Iraq last year had significantly reduced violence in the country. But he said that positive developments there had not changed his mind about the need to pull troops from Iraq so America could focus more on the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan."

The Wall Street Journal also leads off with Obama:

"After a week of fending off Republican attacks on his Iraq-war position, Sen. Barack Obama on Tuesday struck back.

"The Democratic presidential contender said the U.S. was pursuing a 'single-minded' foreign policy that has neglected the war against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups."

In National Review, Rich Lowry argues that Obama is ignoring reality:

"At some point, Democrats decided that facts didn't matter anymore in Iraq. And they nominated just the man to reflect the party's new anti-factual consensus on the war, a Barack Obama who has fixedly ignored changing conditions on the ground. It's gotten harder as the success of the surge has become undeniable, but -- despite some wobbles -- Obama is sticking to his plan for a 16-month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq. He musters dishonesty, evasion and straw-grasping to try to create a patina of respectability around a scandalously unserious position . . .

"Now that the civil war has all but ended, he wants to claim retroactive clairvoyance. In a New York Times op-ed laying out his position, Obama credits the heroism of our troops and new tactics with bringing down the violence. Our troops have always been heroic; what made the difference was the surge strategy that Obama lacked the military judgment -- or political courage -- to support . . .

"Politically, Obama has to notionally support defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq, so even after he's executed his 16-month withdrawal, he says there will be a 'residual force' of American troops to take on 'remnants of al-Qaida.' How can he be so sure there will only be 'remnants'? If there are, it will be because the surge Obama opposed has pushed al-Qaeda to the brink."