A Welcome Distraction

"Critics say the administration's job of coordinating the war has never gone smooth enough or fast enough. And now two key members of the White House team focused on the war are leaving."

Mark Silva blogs for the Chicago Tribune: "The Bush administration may have found that 'war czar' it's been looking for: Vice President Dick Cheney."

"The vice president . . . will depart next week for a tour of Middle East capitals and a review of U.S. troops in the Persian Gulf. . . .

"In the midst of the White House's quest for someone to oversee war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and with the announced departure today of another high-ranking official at the National Security Council -- there is no one more adamant about prosecuting those wars than Cheney."

Where's Osama?

Kevin Whitelaw writes for U.S. News: "When President Bush talks about Osama bin Laden these days, it's usually to rally support for the U.S. effort in Iraq. Last month, he told an audience that bin Laden and his al Qaeda network 'have made it clear they want to drive us from Iraq to establish safe haven in order to launch further attacks.' But over the past year, U.S. intelligence agencies have completely revised their assessment of al Qaeda and reached an alarming conclusion: Bin Laden already has a safe haven-in Pakistan-and may be stronger than ever. . . .

"Privately, U.S. officials concede that they had overestimated the damage they had inflicted on al Qaeda's network. . . .

"Iraq has, of course, been an undeniable boon for al Qaeda, both as a battleground and a rallying cause. But when it comes to exporting terrorism, U.S. intelligence is more worried today about the badlands of western Pakistan. That's where bin Laden has succeeded in reconstituting a safe haven after several years on the run."

Editorial Watch

Editor and Publisher notes that a growing number of editorial pages are starting to call for a U.S. withdrawal.

The Los Angeles Times editorial board writes: "After four years of war, more than $350 billion spent and 3,363 U.S. soldiers killed and 24,310 wounded, it seems increasingly obvious that an Iraqi political settlement cannot be achieved in the shadow of an indefinite foreign occupation. The U.S. military presence -- opposed by more than three-quarters of Iraqis -- inflames terrorism and delays what should be the primary and most pressing goal: meaningful reconciliation among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds.

"This newspaper reluctantly endorsed the U.S. troop surge as the last, best hope for stabilizing conditions so that the elected Iraqi government could assume full responsibility for its affairs. But we also warned that the troops should not be used to referee a civil war. That, regrettably, is what has happened.

"The mire deepens against a backdrop of domestic U.S. politics in which support for the ill-defined mission wanes by the week. Better to begin planning a careful, strategic withdrawal from Iraq now, based on the strategies laid out by the Iraq Study Group, than allow for the 2008 campaign season to create a precipitous pullout."

The Roanoke Times editorial board writes: "Though President Bush seems psychologically incapable of the act, it is time for everyone else in the United States to recognize the inevitable: The occupation of Iraq is an utter, irredeemable failure. We cannot win there militarily or politically.