And this is where it gets tough...

Stability operations take a long time. Counterinsurgency campaigns against aggressive enemies - with extensive safe areas in neighboring countries - take even longer in terms of time and even more in terms of blood and treasure. Western troops are the only troops trained and equipped to have any hope for success in most of these operations...but Western nations don't have the stomach for hard fights any more:

"...American military planners acknowledge that the war is becoming a tough sell: How do you persuade reluctant European governments with staunchly pacifist populations to dispatch frontline troops across the globe to fight such indistinct campaigns as the cat-and-mouse battle against the resurgent Taliban?"

Probably not a particularly good time in history to lose one's stomach for hard fights. It will be interesting to see if more desperate times ahead lead to more desperate measures - like an expansion of roles and responsibilities given to private military companies since few of the forces left in the EU can actually muster much more than a few battalions of infantry hamstrung by government regulations that stretch from the top of the political structure down to the private on patrol.

Trouble signs as Obama closes in - The Boston Globe

Yep. Clinton's refusal to accept she had lost the race by the end of February has created the conditions where a large body of Democratic voters are now conditioned to accept that Obama does not represent them.  So now the question will become this: how much can Billary control this "hard working WHITE Americans!" monster they have created. They've used it to achieve great evil within the Democratic party. Can it be used for Democratic "good?" Jury is still very much out, I think. 

My guess would be putting Hillary on the ticket will not help Obama in the long run - although all of Clinton's efforts for the last week or two seem bent toward ensuring he can only use their monster if they permit it. I don't think such a large body of voters is so easy to control, though. By ANYone.

I'll be honest...

I'm not sure what Baer really has going for him other than his ability to write a book (which I, admittedly, have not read). His perspective on AQ in Iraq, as displayed in this Time article, isn't BAD, but it's largely the same as the official perspective within the American institutions that he slams for not getting it. Over the course of the last year, the US military and much of the intelligence establishment have gotten much better at understanding insurgency and counterinsurgency (has it been because they've really felt like they were up against the clock? Has it been enough people with on the ground experience finally ascending to the proper levels to influence key decisions? I dunno. Probably a mix). This increase in savvy has flummoxed the punditocracy who made their living off sounding like they knew more than the actual practitioners. 

Oops! Shoe's on the other foot now and all these guys are struggling to redefine their core message as American efforts prove surprisingly successful. In Baer's case, it's pretending that AQI wasn't a huge destabilizing force within Iraq (regardless of size) and pretending that general chaos and the disempowerment of Sunnis DIDN'T offer AQ a powerful tool for recruiting worldwide. 

AQI has been pushed to near-strategic defeat in Iraq both because its way of thinking has been proven ineffective - by OUR efforts - and because a whole lot of key terrorist leaders have been killed by an effective network attack campaign waged by American Special Operations forces.

To turn a blind eye toward AQ's former strength in Iraq - or its value as a recruiting tool is a sure sign that it is the pundits - and not the practitioners - who are far less interested in "lessons learned" from our post-9/11 experiences. You know, those experiences that have created this particular punditocracy in the first place....