And the Iraqis thought they were in charge....

Friday night dump, designed to get the least press coverage possible. What truth is the administration trying to hide on this Friday while everyone's talking about Zarqawi? We're not leaving Iraq.

While saying that he is "thrilled" that the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, "a man with a lot of blood on his hands," has been eliminated, the president stopped short of endorsing a recent statement by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that Iraqi forces will be able to control their country within 18 months.

Or if that's not enough of a message for the Iraqis,

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country, a lawmaker and congressional aides said on Friday.

The US is not leaving Iraq, ever.

The US army never leaves after a war, England, Germany, Japan, the Phillipines, Korea, Bosnia.... From WWII, the only major engagement that didn't leave a US footprint behind was Vietnam.

At some point there will be a drawdown of troops, but not a complete withdrawal. Those bases skirting the Iraqi, Iranian, and Saudi oilfields are one of the main reasons the Iraq war was launched.

Except Afghanistan. By the nature of the small initial deployment and use of local warlords, I really don't think the administration wanted to be there in the first place, but they have to be in Afghanistan because they're supposed to be chasing Bin Laden and that props up the geostrategic Iraq war.

And because of this lack of commitment, Afghanistan has turned worse and Karzai's government is getting desperate.

The Afghan government is considering arming tribal groups across the south of the country, where Nato is set to take command next month, in a move diplomats say would destabilise the country.

Update: The NYTimes has a big article on the resurgence of the Taleban as the US largely withdraws from Afghanistan.