Over the weekend, I read that the Senate Armed Services Committee decided to cut $1 billion from the aid the Obama administration requested for Iraq during that country's period of transition to a new government. The cuts extend to funding for security forces. They seem absurd under the present circumstances. With the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to be halved this summer, just as Iraq is trying to form a government, how does it make sense to cut funding for Iraqi troops who are trying to fill the gap left by American units?

IN THIS GALAXY, in the not too distant Future The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan demanded that the U.S. military focus its attention--and much of its research and development--on how best to respond to low-tech threats such as primitive improvised explosive devices. While the IEDs proved to be Publication: The American Conservative

A weapon in Iraq and Afghanistan that continues to kill and maim American and coalition soldiers is the Improvised Explosive Device, or IED.Most IEDs are unsophisticated homemade bombs, but nevertheless they are the number one killer of troops in Afghanistan. In reponse, the US military has launched an intensive program to defeat the users of these deadly homemade bombs. . “You’ve got an entirely different challenge in Afghanistan,” [...]

"..and we'll all have Tea."

London - President Barack Obama stunned the convened heads of state at the G-20 conference today, by announcing that his predecessor, George W. Bush, was "right in just about every one of his major policy decisions", and promised that U.S. military and economic policy would be "a continuation of Bush in all essentials".