Bill Kristol's "The Next War President"

I hate on Bill Kristol a lot on this blog. But occasionally he has good insights from a conservative perspective. Take today's column in the New York Times:

This past weekend Barack Obama added to his itinerary a visit to Arlington National Cemetery. Obama knows that he, too, will be a war president. He knows the decisions he makes as commander in chief will be his most consequential. And so on Sunday morning, before going to church, he placed a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns and stood silently as taps was sounded. The somber tableau provided quite a contrast to all the hubbub and talk of the last few days. Obama’s silent tribute captured a deeper truth, and — I dare say — a more fundamental hope, than could any speech.

This, I think, is a good insight. Whether Obama will be successful as a president will be in large part how he handles the two wars America currently faces.

But, of course, like anything with a Bill Kristol column. There is some stupidity as well:

But I don’t think keeping us safe has been Bush’s most impressive achievement. That was winning the war in Iraq, and in particular, his refusal to accept defeat when so many counseled him to do so in late 2006. His ordering the surge of troops to Iraq in January 2007 was an act of personal courage and of presidential leadership. The results have benefited both Iraq and the United States. And the outcome in Iraq is a remarkable gift to the incoming president, who now only has to sustain success, rather than trying to deal with the consequences in the region and around the world of a humiliating withdrawal and a devastating defeat.

What? Was there a ticker tape parade celebrating the Iraq War victory? Did we withdraw our troops and is Iraq a stable democracy free from violence? The war is going much better than it was 3 years ago. But it's an overstatement to call it a victory.