And Instapundit points to a study finding that anti-Americanism in Europe is fueled by ignorance.

Credit for the Surge (September 15)

Shmuel Rosner of Contentions approves of Fred Hiatt's column on the surge in the Washington Post, especially his acknowledgement of the role of Bush and Hadley in pushing for the surge. Jen Rubin is also taken by Bush's hand in the surge, as revealed in Woodward's new book. She cites the Wall Street Journal's editorial on what she calls the "judgment and tenacity of the President."

Matt Yglesias links to a video of Francis Fukuyama and Robert Kagan discussing relations between America and Russia just before the Russia-Georgia war.

Palin, Post Interview (September 12)

Matt Yglesias thinks "Sarah Palin's answer to the question about going to war with Russia wasn't as bad as ABC News' teaser made it out to be." But, then again, her answer did reflect a "bad policy idea that, unfortunately, is shared by members of both parties."

Powerline's John Hinderaker is more exercised about a Washington Post article this morning that claims "Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."  Instead, Hinderaker argues, Palin was accurately saying that soldiers fighting in Iraq will encounter al Qaeda. That is, "the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans." He notes that the Post amended its story to add the line: "it is widely agreed that militants allied with al-Qaeda have taken root in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion."

Seven Years On (September 11)

Matt Yglesias' take on where we are seven years later: "If you'd told me on the morning of September 12 that seven years later the country would have gone without an additional al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil, I'm not sure I would have believed you. If you'd told me that more Americans would wind up dying in Iraq than died in the World Trade Center, I'm almost positive I wouldn't have believed you. And if you'd told me that seven years later Osama bin Laden would still be at large, I'm sure I wouldn't have believed you."

Speaking of Iraq, Instapundit is happy that foreign investment in Iraq is increasing-thanks to the improved security situation. He quotes a USA Today article that reports, "More than $74 billion in projects have been submitted for government approval in just the past five months, according to Iraq's state investment regulator. The investors include companies from the U.S., Europe, and Gulf Arab states…."

And what about the way the world perceives America, seven years later? Well, perhaps the desires of non-Americans for an Obama presidency are some indication of that perception. Shmuel Rosner, at Contentions, looks at the political implications of Obama's popularity abroad. "I argued a couple of months ago that world enthusiasm might help Obama, but it can also hurt him. I'm sure some people will assume it has something to do with American voters' stupidity-but some others might call it backbone." That is, Rosner thinks that Americans want a President who stands up to other countries, as opposed to being popular with them. But why not both?

Israel's Nukes (September 10)

Justin Shubow at Contentions notices a novel argument about Israeli strategy. In the Jerusalem Post, Louis Rene Beres suggests that Israel make its nuclear program public to improve its deterrent capacity against Iran. "Presumably," writes Shubow, "[Beres] means that Israel ought to divulge the extent to which it possesses MIRVs, tactical nukes, anti-missile warheads, nuclear-capable submarines, and nuclear-hardened silos."

In other Middle East-related news, Powerline's Paul Mirengoff takes notice of the Washington Post's series of articles from Bob Woodward's new book. Mirengoff interprets the story, as it has been presented so far, as Bush versus his generals. As Mirengoff summarizes it, "[Bush] was plagued by military leaders who seemed largely clueless about how to win there and, in Woodward's account, may not have been sufficiently committed to winning."

And staying with the Woodward theme, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross at the Weekly Standard's Blog points out that Woodward has also disclosed, according to CNN, that there exist "secret operational capabilities developed by the military to locate, target and kill leaders of al Qaeda in Iraq and other insurgent leaders." The implication is that it was this effort, and not the surge itself, that improved the situation in Iraq. But, Gartenstein-Ross reports, a "senior U.S. military intelligence officer" told him that "I am somewhat perplexed at this point as to just who told Woodward this that led him to adopt this view with such fervor, since it is nothing short of a mystery to many of the people involved with either the Awakening or the surge, which were the two major shifts by US and Iraqi forces on the ground that allowed for a reduction in violence."

A Nuclear World (September 9)

Abe Greenwald at Contentions is upset about the situation in Russia. He writes, "Russian has turned away international aid convoys carrying flour, pasta and sugar to Georgian villages. Russian forces have also stopped the ambassadors of Sweden, Latvia and Estonia from going past Russian ‘peacekeeping' checkpoints into Georgian territory…. And has anyone even seen our President lately?"

Also on Contentions, Emanuele Ottolenghi asks whether the relatively muted response of the West to the Georgia invasion was due to the need for Russian cooperation on Iran. He doesn't think it makes any sense: "Russia was never fully on board when it came to Iran-before and after Georgia." Yesterday, he adds, "Russian sources announced that Russia may increase nuclear assistance to Iran-including training scientists."

And Gordon Chang takes exception to Condoleezza Rice's claim that the Bush administration's record on the proliferation of nuclear weapons "is very strong." She said, "We have left this situation, or this issue, in far better shape than we found it." After reviewing the record on Iraq, Libya, Iran and North Korea, Chang concludes that "The Bush administration is not responsible for every unfavorable global trend, of course, but her assessment of accomplishment is grossly inflated."

In other nukes news, Matt Yglesias is concerned that nobody paid any attention to the fact that over the weekend the Nuclear Suppliers Group decided to OK the U.S.-India nuclear deal. He worries about the implications for non-proliferation efforts, seeing as to how under the current policy "the extent to which a country's nuclear activities are permitted is just a function of how we feel about them." He adds, dryly, that this "seems unlikely to be viable over the long haul."

In even more nukes news, Andy McCarthy, writing in The Corner, approves of Bush's announcement that he has cancelled the U.S.-Russia Civilian Nuclear Cooperation pact. He says, "It may only have been symbolic-Congress wasn't going to approve the deal in any event-but it was the right thing to do and the right tone to set."

Warplanes for Iraq? (September 8)

In some news that seems to be a bit out of left field, Gordon Chang at Contentions is asking if China is planning to invade Vietnam. He concedes that, "at first glance, [it] sounds preposterous." But "the Vietnamese in recent days twice summoned the Chinese ambassador to protest ‘invasion plans' posted on at least four Chinese websites.  The plans detail a 31-day operation and an attack of 310,000 troops.  Beijing denied it had anything to do with the postings, which ‘by no means represented China's stance.'"

Staying in Asia, Matt Yglesias notes a recent piece by Joshua Kurlantzick discussing nationalist divides that are precluding a collective Asian response to "a western-centric world order." 

Scott Johnson of Powerline highlights Dexter Filkins' piece in the New York Times Magazine on the tribal areas of Pakistan. 

And The Corner points out that combat journalist Bing West was interviewed by CBS about the Iraq war and more over the weekend. Also out of Iraq, over the weekend Shmuel Rosner of Contentions asked, "Should Iraq get F-16 fighter jets?" It looks like the Iraqis probably will, which begs obvious questions: "can [the Iraqi government] be trusted to keep them in the right hands? Will it not use them to harass neighbors as it did in the past?"

McCain Hates War (September 5)

National Review's The Corner is happy that McCain made an effort in last night's speech to challenge the assumption that he is a war-mongerer. Lisa Schiffren writes, "that bit about hating war was essential. I have had earful after earful of what a hot-headed, lunatic, war-mongerer John McCain would be as president…." However, Noah Pollak, writing at Contentions, thinks that foreign policy was "conspicuously missing," but figures that's because McCain doesn't exactly have a problem with "a public perception of his unwillingness to take on our enemies."

The other candidate for President was on The O'Reilly Factor last night, and Instapundit noticed that he said, "I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated… I've already said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."