1) From the Wall Street Journal, "The New Reality In Iraq" by Frederick W. Kagan, Kimberly Kagan and Jack Keane

The authors, contributing architects of the surge, have recently returned from a trip to Iraq and have taken note of some dramatic progress:

As far as the civil war is concerned, there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders - Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia…

If America remains firm in its commitment to success in Iraq, success is very likely. The AQI and Shiite militias at present do not have the capacity to drive Iraq off course - unless both the U.S. and the Iraqi government make a number of serious mistakes.

The most serious error would be to withdraw American forces too rapidly. That would strengthen the resolve of both al Qaeda and Iran to persevere in their efforts to disrupt the young Iraqi state and weaken the resolve of those Iraqis, particularly in the Iraqi Security Forces, who are betting their lives on continued American assistance.

The blunt fact is this. In Iraq, al Qaeda is on the ropes, and the Shiite militias are badly off-balance. Now is exactly the time to continue the pressure to keep them from regaining their equilibrium. It need not, and probably will not, require large numbers of American casualties to keep this pressure on. But it will require a considerable number of American troops through 2009.

The Democrats, as personified by their current standard bearer, have steadfastly declined to see reality in Iraq. Until days ago, Barack Obama was declaring the surge an abject failure and muttering sweet nothings about an Iraqi civil war into the netroots' collective ear. Since the facts on the ground no longer support that view, Obama and his surrogates have pivoted to declaring the battle in Iraq over while lusting for battle in Afghanistan so they can show their tough guy bona fides.

The only thing the two divergent Obama views have in common is their refusal to deal with reality. The surge has been a success, but the gains have been hard won and are not irrevocable. If anyone would want to take a victory lap for the surge, one would think it would be the authors of this article who were among its architects. The Kagans and Keane have opted for a more sober and responsible approach.

I'll buy into the Hope thing just for a moment and hope against all available evidence that Barack Obama is capable of showing the same characteristics.

2) From the Washington Post, "The Iron Timetable" by the editors

The Post takes the Democrats' presumptuous nominee to the woodshed today. The last politician to take such abuse from the Post's editorial board was Richard Nixon:

Mr. Obama reiterated yesterday that he would consult with U.S. commanders and the Iraqi government and "make tactical adjustments as we implement this strategy." However, as Mr. McCain quickly pointed out, he delivered his speech before traveling to Iraq -- before his meetings with Gen. David H. Petraeus and the Iraqi leadership. American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. Iraqis will say that a pullout that is not negotiated with the government and disregards the readiness of Iraqi troops will be a gift to al-Qaeda and other enemies. If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?