Here are the top stories this week related to our soldiers here and abroad, taken from the Our Troops Newsladder.

In Part V of its War Torn series, The New York Times examines the increased rates of alcoholism among returning combat veterans. (nytimes.com)

After the deadliest month in the war in Afghanistan so far, President Bush announced plans to increase the number of troops deployed to Afghanistan. 28 U.S. troops died in Afghanistan in June, outnumbering the June count in Iraq, which has triple the number of forces there. (armytimes.com)

Seldom has fate dealt us such a fortuitous hand.  The single most important bit of news this year and it's not getting nearly as much play as it should.  I can only hope that the right people notice it.

Per the AP:

Iraq's national security adviser said Tuesday his country will not accept any security deal with the United States unless it contains specific dates for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

The comments by Mouwaffak al-Rubaie were the strongest yet by an Iraqi official about the deal now under negotiation with U.S. officials. They came a day after Iraq's prime minister first said publicly that he expects the pending troop deal with the United States to have some type of timetable for withdrawal.

President Bush has said he opposes a timetable. The White House said Monday it did not believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was proposing a rigid timeline for U.S. troop withdrawals.

It is looking more and more like the Iraqis won't agree to a security deal without a date certain.  The White House seems to be balking.  This is great news for a few reasons.  More after the jump...

Two weeks ago, I posted a diary on DailyKos, MyDD, Open Left, and the Swing State Project announcing the creation of the ActBlue page Protecting Our Asses.  The goals of this page are as follows:

In the article "How John McCain will End the War", it becomes clear that his choice of policies are not well-thought out and contradictory.  McCain is both acting on his own ideology and advocating policies that he thinks will appeal to his constituency.  Whether they make any sense seems to be irrelevant.

Cross posted at The Left Anchor.

The following post is cannibalized from a comment I made at TPZoo.  It seems to me that some Obama supporters might be going a bit overboard with their declarations that Obama has made "massive" shifts to the center (I feel his biggest shifts are on FISA and NAFTA, the second of which doesn't surprise me, and the first of which would probably pass no matter what he did).  As for foreign policy, here is my take on Obama's Iraq position:

There are two basic elements to military action: strategy and tactics. Strategy is the long term plan aimed at achieving a given goal. Obama has very clearly stated that his strategy is to remove troops at roughly two brigades per month until all troops are out. This will achieve the goal of removing us from the Iraq quagmire. What is important to note here is that specific tactics for achieving this strategy do not fall under Obama's domain. He doesn't have the military training to be making those decisions. Presidents in general don't make those types of low-level decisions. That would be micromanaging, which is just generally a poor way to run things.

Despite the precipitous plunge in his popularity and growing criticism of his competency, character, and style, George W. Bush is not really that much different from other presidents with respect to his hegemonic ambitions or his proclivity to use force to achieve foreign policy objectives.  Continuing historical patterns, President Bush and all presidents since World War II have committed horrendous crimes against humanity in order to protect and advance American interests under the guise of liberating people from under the jackboot of brutal dictators or communist subversives, bringing democracy to totalitarian states, improving the lives of those who are suffering and eradicating terrorism.

The gaping discrepancy between the stated goals of American foreign policy and its praxis is best exemplified by the apogee of war crimes: genocide.  In its pursuit of these lofty goals, the United States has committed genocide in Iraq.  Intervention resulting in genocide at the very minimum proves that American government's professed motives for foreign policy decisions are altogether specious.

Here is what Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff and certainly no left-winger, said with respect to the dilemma with troop levels in Afghanistan and Iraq recently.

"What I said in my statement is also important as a part of that calculus, which is, I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq...unlike the insurgency in Iraq, we don't have enough troops there to hold." http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/mull en-cant-have-more-troops-in-afghanistan- until-i-have-a-reduced-requirement-in-ir aq/

"In the last six or seven months, we have a put a tremendous amount of focus on Afghanistan, and I think rightfully so. It is an economy-of-force campaign, and by definition, that means we don't have enough forces there...I am constrained on forces I can generate quite frankly because of Iraq. Afghanistan is a significant challenge and is going to take a significant period of time." http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/30/mcca in-afghanistan-iraq/

Admiral Mullen sounds closer to Obama than he does to General Petreus or McCain on the issue of troop presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.  McCain has dismissed arguments in favor of reducing the troop presence in Iraq to deal with the threat by arguing that Afghanistan and Iraq are not an either/or proposition.

With violence increasing in Afghanistan (it has increased the last four months) and the Taliban getting as strong as it has been in the last seven years, isn't it time for McCain and Petraeus to "refine" their positions with respect to Afghanistan?  Did McCain visit Afghanistan in his last sojourn to the Middle East?  

How does Petraeus get around Crocker's admission to Joe Biden that it would be better for US interests to go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan than Al Qaeda in Iraq if he has no way of getting more troops to that region without redeploying troops from Iraq?

Obama should talk more about the increasing threat that is Afghanistan; I wonder if Obama will be stressing Afghanistan more once he talks to the commanders on the ground there.

Is Obama a flip-flopper? Has he been shifting to the right since the end of the primaries?

Let's take a look at Obama's positions on the issues now and then.