Today's Jerusalem Post featured a devastating critique of the military and foreign policy of Obama and Biden.  Entitled, "Obama's Iraq plan: A Vietnam flashback" here are some of the highlights of this excellent piece by Abraham Katsman --

You wouldn't know it from following the major news outlets. And you certainly wouldn't know it from listening to the campaign speeches of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. But the United States military and coalition forces have been on a roll in Iraq. Just last week, yet another province was secure enough to be turned over to the surprisingly effective new Iraqi security forces. That news seemed to get lost amidst the superbly thorough news coverage of Sarah Plain's new wardrobe.

So, for those of you who read The New York Times, here is a brief summary of where we are in Iraq: as a direct result of the 2007 "surge"-so vocally advocated by John McCain, and so vocally opposed by Obama, Biden and the Democrat leadership-huge sections of Iraq are now stable, peaceful and free...

...In September, US combat deaths for all of Iraq were six-about the same as an average weekend in Chicago.

...But if Obama and Biden have their way, we'll pull up the flag and go home-in defeat, squandering our huge gains. Even now, they only grudgingly, belatedly credit the surge for any success-as recently as July, Obama said he still wouldn't support it, even in hindsight. They are still wedded to the same withdrawal schedule Obama advocated before the surge, when he stated:

Let me be clear: there is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was. The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now.

For Obama, a man with zero military background or foreign policy experience, to stubbornly maintain the same defeatist policy in the face of resounding military success... ...requires a noxious blend of arrogance and hubris.

Unfortunately, we've been in an eerily similar situation before: the aftermath of Vietnam-and the results weren't pretty. Like Saigon, our allies in Baghdad cannot yet survive without us.

Who were those Democrats responsible for such a policy (the defeat in Vietnam resulting in the deaths of millions by communist armies)? Could such people be trusted to handle a post-Bush Iraq? Are people with that blood on their consciences still in power? Well, here's a hint: one went on to vote against the first Gulf War, got caught in a plagiarizing scandal, opposed the Alaska pipeline and opposed the aforementioned successful "surge." Yep, the man now providing foreign policy experience, judgment and "gravitas" to the Obama candidacy: a young anti-war Senator named Joe Biden.

Early in the war, critics constantly compared Iraq to Vietnam. With Obama and Biden in charge, that may turn out to be an apt comparison.