Drink coffee and exercise, and you lower your chances for skin cancer, but drink alcohol daily, you increase your chance of getting bowel cancer. Hmmmm. Since something is going to get me in the end no matter what I do, I guess I'll keep doing what I'm doing.

The modern Russian equivalent of the Hitler Youth? They are even being encouraged to bear children for the Motherland, just as the young Aryans were encouraged to provide children for their Fatherland.

Tom Delay analyzes the Presidential field.

An argument for a new policy of containment to defeat Islamist terrorism.

Here is yet another new vision for American security policy.

Surprisingly, readers of the New York Times this morning were treated to this op-ed piece, which says we are winning the war in Iraq. I expect that President Bush is getting the same message from his commanders in the field, and Congress will get that same message in September directly from General Petraeus. That should stiffen the resolve of Republicans in Congress just enough to prevent passage of any withdrawal or timeline plans. The big question is whether or not it will make a big enough difference out in the public as we head into the election year of 2008. As always, we are held hostage by uncontrollable events. Will the military situation continue to improve through the second half of this year and on into 2008? Will the Iraqis begin to make the necessary compromises to diminish the sectarian violence (as it appears that the Al Qaeda thugs have already forced Sunni Iraqis to make compromises with the Americans...a boon to the effort of defeating them)? If the situation continues to improve on into next year, the political situation here at home will also change dramatically. Right now, I still believe the American people want to get out, by and large, but I also believe the majority don't want to lose. These seemingly contradictory feelings will drive the electorate in November of 2008, and the results, at this time, are unpredictable.

Apparently, someone on the inside of a Congressional briefing about a secret operation by American forces with Turkey to deal with Kurdish insurgents on their border with Iraq decided to leak the general facts to Robert Novak, no doubt in an effort to try and stop the operation. I'm not sure how I feel about the political situation, as I value the alliance with Turkey, but I also believe the Kurds are our best friends in Iraq, but I certainly despise the person or persons who leaked the operation to Novak. I wish they could be caught and prosecuted.

The New York post finds some good news in the latest poll numbers about Iraq. I think the surge in the poll numbers, however modest, is being driven by the success of the surge in Iraq, however modest, as best described here by LTC(Ret.) Ralph Peters, also in the Post. It just goes to show you that the American people still want to win, but will only support the continuation of this war, and any war for that matter, if they see a possible path to victory.

Americans may also be gaining an awareness of the consequences of defeat, as described here by former NY Times correspondent Clifford May.

Still, the intelligence community continues to aid Democrats in Congress in refuting the case being made by the President that Iraq is the "central front" in the war against Al Qaeda. Hollywood is also making its contribution by painting a negative picture of the war (which is not hard to do...making an anti-war movie has to be the easiest job in film making) and the soldiers who are fighting it.

What does it all mean? That the "central front" in the war against Al Qaeda and the allies is really here at home. If the American people are convinced that our military cannot win in Iraq, then our politicians will, eventually, respond by withdrawing those troops. As May points out in his article, if that happens, then there will be no logical reason to continue in Afghanistan, as similar conditions will prevail, although on a smaller scale. This will lead to an inevitable psychological withdrawal, making future Presidents far less willing to use our military to fight the Islamists. That will give them time and space to re-group, re-arm and, eventually, take the fight to us once again on our own soil.

My opinion remains unchanged. I foresee an eventual U.S. defeat in Iraq (because we will give up and go home, not because our troops were defeated on the battlefield), which will lead, at some point down the road, to a much larger, bloodier war. Our children will curse us for our stupidity in electing poor leaders, and our timidity.

Ralph Peters takes a dim view of the election results in Turkey.

Those Americans being held hostage in Iran can expect no help from their government.

Perhaps we should develop a more robust CIA-led special operations force, according to this op-ed in the NY Times.

A new report sees U.S. troops in Iraq through at least 2009.

A new poll shows some small improvement in the numbers for the war policy, but still shows a solid majority in favor of withdrawal. Another poll shows continued abysmal ratings for the President and Congress, again driven by dissatisfaction with the war policy. Combine those numbers with the political campaign cash numbers, and you can clearly see that the GOP is facing a crushing defeat in November, 2008.

Christopher Hitchens slams George Galloway again, as Galloway faces a damning report from Parliament that says he did take bribes from Saddam Hussein.

This story, about the website that aids soldiers in their efforts to cheat on Army exams, paints a picture of a soldier who, in my view, should be thrown out of the Army.

Japan is flexing its military muscles, with the approval and aid of the United States.

Brazil's air traffic control system and general aviation infrastructure appear to be deteriorating, leading to all sorts of problems.

Ralph Peters writes this tribute to John McCain.

Check out this video of a recent tribute by the French to the brave Americans who helped to liberate their land from Nazi tyranny in 1944. Perhaps now that Jacques Chirac has left the scene we can get back to the fundamental truths about our relationship, which are that the U.S. and France have longstanding bonds of friendship (without French help, our independence would not have been assured back in 1781), are both modern, Western-style democracies, and have shared security interests in Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere.

Good news from the battlefields of Iraq. Al Qaeda has succeeded in alienating many of their Sunni supporters. This is probably the main reason why we are seeing operations work more effectively in places like Anbar province.

According to the Weekly Standard, the 9/11 Generation is better than the Boomers. As a tail-end Boomer, I think Boomers get a bad rap. Many of my generation did stand up and serve during the Vietnam War (including my older brother who, in the Army's infinite wisdom and to his relief, decided he would serve their needs better in Germany than in Vietnam). Some (like my brother) were drafted and served honorably, others volunteered. I suspect that the majority of the Boomers were not engaged in anti-social activity, or protesting against America, but rather getting on with their lives like all the preceding and subsequent generations did and are doing. Just as the hippies were a slice of a generation, so too are the current members of our all-volunteer military. Generalizations tend to be inaccurate, which is why it is better to speak specifically about individuals, rather than groups.

Bob Ryan weighs in on the Vick indictment. I believe his sentiments are widely shared.

As for me, while I believe deeply in the presumption of innocence, I also believe that the Atlanta Falcons and the National Football League have a big problem. Having read the indictment, it seems that the prosecutors managed to present a pile of evidence convincing enough to get a Federal grand jury to hand down some serious charges. Recent Federal cases have shown that, despite the wealth and power of the defendants, the prosecutors are certainly putting together strong cases (Libby, Black, etc.). Michael Vick will be a terrible public relations problem for the team and the league, and they may decide that just making him go away for a while is the best solution.

Jeff Jacoby writes about the consequences of leaving Iraq.

A new report says we are losing the war against Al Qaeda. Just another nail in the GOP's coffin come November of 2008.

Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is indicted on charges of running a dog fighting ring. Read the indictment. Even without a conviction, the charges are so heinous, especially from a public relations standpoint, that Vick will certainly lose all of his endorsement deals and may lose his job.

More trouble for the McCain campaign.

Senators Jim Webb and Lindsey Graham face off in a testy exchange on NBC's "Meet the Press". The subject was Iraq, of course.

So, according to this story, we're going to spend millions of dollars in aid to people in the tribal areas of Pakistan. That will buy a lot of guns and ammunition to kill our troops with, now won't it? Although it is possible that the recent end of a truce between the Pakistani government and the radicals could lead to more robust engagement by the Pakistani Army, which would prevent the U.S. aid, and just might help our guys fighting in Afghanistan.

Another story that illustrates why Iraq, which is in the midst of a low-level civil war right now, will dissolve into a full-blown civil war when we leave. Not enough for you? Here is another.

Meanwhile, in Iran, the government is cracking down on dissenters.

One brave Briton dares to write the truth about the Islamists in "The Guardian". Just scroll down the comments list to see how much vitriol that generates.

The latest polls show Clinton still leading Obama here in NH, while Romney leads Giuliani. But the Democrats appear to fear Fred Thompson, and I think they have every reason to fear him. Watch those poll numbers change once he officially gets in the race.

MCCAIN, GOP (AND THE COUNTRY) ALL HEADED FOR DEFEAT

Mona Charen is worried about the GOP's chances in 2008. She is right to be worried.

John McCain is trying to re-capture the magic that propelled him to victory here in NH back in 2000. He will be unable to do so, for the simple fact that his victory then was driven by Independents who crossed over into the Republican primary. Those voters will be participating in the Democratic primary this time, according to recent polls (and my gut feeling agrees with those numbers), leaving a more conservative base to vote in the GOP primary. Those voters went mostly for George W. Bush in 2000, many because they wanted to stop McCain (full disclosure...I voted for Bush, but not because I disliked McCain, rather because his positions on the issues were closer to mine than McCain, especially on things like campaign finance reform). If he is still in the race when we go to vote here in NH (a date that is, as of yet, still unknown), he will likely finish no better than third.

Victor Davis Hanson analyzes the New York Times withdrawal editorial. Not surprisingly, Hanson believes it to be wrong on nearly every point. I agree with Hanson. In fact, I agree in my heart (and my mind) with Bill Kristol when he applauds the President for standing firm on the surge and the effort to achieve victory in Iraq. Both men are absolutely correct in their assertion that a withdrawal from Iraq will be seen as a defeat for the U.S. and will have terrible consequences for not only the people of Iraq, but the people in the entire region (and, eventually, the rest of the world). But, unfortunately, Dick Morris is also right when he analyzes the domestic political situation. If our troops are still fighting in Iraq in large numbers, without a withdrawal plan already on the table and in the process of being implemented, then the Democrats are going to win big. When they take power in January of 2009, the withdrawal process will begin shortly thereafter. So, our Hobson's choice is simple...begin withdrawing now, facing the consequences of our defeat, and have a chance at keeping the White House for the GOP, or wait and withdraw later, with all the negative consequences that entails, and face the prospect of a Democrat in the White House with substantially larger majorities in the Congress. I don't like it, but that is the way I see it. Want more evidence the American people are not equipped for these long, drawn out, seemingly inconclusive limited wars? Check out this story.

IRAQ OUTLOOK...HOMELAND SECURITY...IT STILL LOOKS BAD

W. Thomas Smith, Jr., who was once a Platoon Leader in the USMC, reflects on the issue of Iraq and the men and women fighting there.

Austin Bay posts some possible scenarios for Iraq if our troops are withdrawn. Only one looks rosy, and I think it is the least likely one, at that.

Stories like this one make me wonder how it is that we have managed to avoid a major terrorist attack here at home since 9/11. I guess it just means that the terrorists are even less competent than our Federal protectors. Along those same lines, this story indicates that Al Qaeda has regained its strength back to pre-9/11 levels, which means that either the Bush strategy for defeating Al Qaeda, or its execution, or both, is fundamentally flawed.

President Bush will declare that some gains are being made in Iraq, according to this story in the New York Times. Politically, it does not matter, because Dick Morris is absolutely correct about the electoral consequences of maintaining our current troop levels in Iraq.

David Ignatius says there is a possible consensus on how to get out of Iraq. He might be right, but I suspect the competing political forces in Washington and the ugly realities of Iraq will prevent us from reaching that consensus.

The bottom line remains the same. This Administration has squandered its historic opportunity to defeat Islamism politically and militarily through a series of mistakes since 9/11. For those reasons, and because the American people are not psychologically equipped to support long, drawn out, and seemingly inconclusive limited wars, we are now on the verge of a historic defeat, and are moving ever closer to the much larger, more devastating shooting war that will be seen as the natural consequence of the mistakes made between 2001 and 2008 (and beyond). Ironically, the American people are far better equipped to handle the big, unlimited war, even if it is of an extended duration. Of course, many more people will die in such a war who would not have died if we had been able to better support our more limited efforts. In that sense, I believe future historians, while faulting President Bush and his people for their many mistakes, will give them credit for trying to avoid the global conflagration (much as President Wilson is given credit for trying to build a global security organization...the League of Nations...and ensure American participation in it, even though he failed).

Pakistani government forces stormed that Islamist mosque yesterday. Clearly, they were left with few options in that situation, all of them bad.

Ralph Peters talked to General Petraeus recently, and recounts the conversation in this piece in the New York Post.

According to the U.S. ambassador and the Iraqi Foreign Minister, if we pull our troops out of Iraq before the Iraqi government can maintain control, civil war will ensue. I think a majority of Americans would say, "So what?". That sounds pretty cold, but I think it is the truth.

Bill Kristol is urging the President not to listen to those advisers who are counseling some form of withdrawal from Iraq. Kristol has been very consistent on this issue, and is to be commended for his instinct to stay and fight (although is not doing any of the fighting, of course). But this country should be governed most of the time by the will of the majority, and that will is clearly being directed toward a withdrawal. Our members of Congress are responding to that will. If I can applaud them for responding to the popular will regarding immigration, as Phyllis Schlafly does, then shouldn't I also commend them for responding to the public will about Iraq?

The Army missed its June goal for new recruits. As the war becomes even more unpopular, and as the economy continues to hum along, this should be no surprise. What is truly remarkable is how long they have been able to meet their goals.

As the father of two daughters myself, this story certainly backs up my contention that we should use all our power to destroy the Islamists. As Richard Cohen writes, sometimes it is an honor to be hated by certain people.

NH Secretary of State Bill Gardner gets a nice piece in today's Boston Globe. Gardner really is the humble, unassuming, non-partisan guy the article makes him out to be, which is a plus for the state, and our primary.

In Iraq, things have gotten so bad that Sunni and other minority lawmakers are calling on ordinary citizens to arm themselves in self-defense (although, truth be told, I thought most Iraqis were armed already and, besides, having an AK-47 won't save you from a suicide bomber, unless you get the drop on him).

Some analysis on a "historic" editorial from the New York Times, which in yesterday's editions called for a withdrawal from Iraq. Here is some critical analysis of the same editorial. Meanwhile, in today's editions, the NYT says that some inside the White House are now talking about getting the President to agree to a withdrawal, before so many GOP lawmakers defect that the issue is forced by Congress. As I have been writing for some time, the political critical mass was reached some time ago on the continuation of the war. There is a solid majority of voting Americans who want us to get our troops out of Iraq sooner rather than later. That fact led to the GOP debacle in November of 2006 and it will lead to an even greater debacle in November of 2008 unless the issue is taken off the table. The only way it can be taken off the table is to have a withdrawal plan in place by the time folks go out to vote. This doesn't mean that all out troops need to be out of Iraq, just that a recognized withdrawal plan is being implemented. If the Democrats are arguing that it is not going fast enough, that can be put into the context of normal political debate. Other issues will take precedence. The Democrats could still win the election, but at least the Republicans will have a fighting chance. Bob Novak writes about how the President is getting the message, if he is getting the message, about the political reality on the Hill.

The larger war, of course, goes on. In Pakistan, the government may have to storm a mosque filled with Islamist radicals (and some folks who probably would leave if given the chance). It won't be pretty, and it could lead to larger civil unrest. Arnaud de Borchgrave outlines the details, and it makes for sobering reading, especially when you consider that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

Finally, Turkey is massing troops on the Iraq border. Have a nice day.

TIME TO PLAN OUR IRAQ EXIT

In the New York Times, this op-ed piece by a retired British General makes an interesting point about how the British Empire actually benefited from finally deciding to give up trying to subdue the American colonists. Clearly, he is making a parallel argument about our efforts in Iraq. It coincides with some thinking I have been doing on the subject over these last few months. As it is clear to me, based on American political history after World War II, that support for the war domestically has dropped to a level that makes it certain our leaders will withdraw our troops from Iraq, probably sometime in 2009, whether or not stability is achieved there, then it makes sense to think about the post-Iraq War world. Just as many in Britain, especially King George III, believed that failure in America would lead to dire consequences for their country, so, too, do many here in the United States believe that failure in Iraq will lead to dire consequences for us. But there is something to be said for that perfectly sensible military tactic of withdrawing to more defensible lines. By giving up America, the British had time to re-build their armed forces to face the inevitable final showdown with the French. If we give up Iraq, we will still be able to prosecute the war against al Qaeda world-wide and in Afghanistan and, most importantly, re-build our armed forces for the inevitable showdown with Iran. Just as Britain was in 1783, we will become temporarily weakened in order to get stronger in the long run. Just as Britain did in 1783, we have all the advantages over our foes, including a more flexible political system that is more desirable to the greater masses of people over time, an economy that grows stronger as it transitions to the next level, and a military power that is second-t0-none, but that needs some breathing space to get back into top form.

Therefore, it seems to me, it is time to get on with the business of planning our exit from Iraq. I hope the eventual Republican presidential nominee will embrace that position (otherwise, we will certainly have a Democratic president in January of 2009). I know it will be difficult, and will result in short-term losses. But, in the end, I believe we are the stronger, and will prevail.

I will be sitting in for Dan Yorke on WPRO-AM in Providence, RI today from 3-7 PM. Among the things I am considering for discussion:

Is the foster care system in Rhode Island broken? This article in the Providence Journal gives some of the details about a lawsuit that has been filed against the state by child advocates.

Did the President abuse his power by commuting "Scooter" Libby's sentence? Or did the prosecutor abuse his power by pursuing the case in the first place? Here is the front-page story in the New York Times with the details and reaction.

John McCain is doing poorly in the fund-raising battle, and is laying off staff from his campaign team, according to this Washington Post story. Should he pack it in? Can he really expect to win the GOP nomination with his positions on campaign finance reform and immigration, even if he is in tune with the base that wants to fight on to victory in Iraq? Here is one formula for recovery.

Speaking of Iraq, is the so-called "surge" working? Should we fight on to victory, or is that no longer possible?

On immigration reform, is some form of legalization (or amnesty) really a solution? Pat Buchanan believes the defeat of the immigration reform bill backed by the President gives him a unique opportunity to restore his political fortunes to a certain degree.

Also, there is certain to be some discussion of the latest concerning the bomb plot in the UK. Christopher Hitchens believes the plotters were deliberately aiming to kill women.

Richard Cohen believes the Democrats are failing to heed an important lesson about education. I agree with him on this one.

In the U.K., the hunt intensifies for other members of the car bomb plot. Fortunately, it appears that they lacked the expertise necessary to succeed.

The Boston Globe sees fit to make a front-page story about New Hampshire's transition from a red state to a blue state. This is something that has been happening gradually over the last fifteen years (which is how long I have been observing the process up close). The tipping point was reached last November. Local Republicans are fooling themselves if they believe they can get it back anytime soon (unless the Democrats are dumb enough to try and pass, or campaign for, a state-wide income or sales tax).

The New York Times sees fit to make a front-page story about the lobbying efforts by Fred Thompson's sons. Do you think they'll put Hugh Rodham's business dealings on their front-page anytime soon?

Here is a true minority point of view as we head into the Fourth of July holiday.

Mark Steyn is still exasperated by the response of Western elites regarding Islamists and their threats.

One former Army officer wishes we had leaders who measured up to our soldiers and their care-givers. Unfortunately, it seems that our system is only capable of delivering us those kinds of leaders by accident. I hope we are fortunate to have such an accident in November of 2008, but I am not optimistic.