Barack Obama’s most recent take on Iraq, found today in the editorial section of The New York Times, offers the nation a perverse resolution to America’s Iraq involvement

In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda - greatly weakening its effectiveness. But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

Actually, the Iraqi government is starting to, albeit not as quickly as any of us would prefer. To be so sophisticated and worldly, Democrats of late tend to view historically slow moving events through microwave-quick glasses. A responsible commander-in-chief would be advocated a military expansion right now.

Unlike many of the hard line lefties out there, Barack Obama is at least no longer in denial that the situation in Iraq is improving. However, his response has been puzzling. Because there is progress, but not fast enough progress, we must then throw the baby out with the bathwater? (okay, bad metaphor - we already know Barack Obama doesn’t mind throwing out babies).

His positions aren’t evolving - they are regressing into a muddled mess.