To read this piece, you would think the "war" in Iraq was over, Iraqis had taken charge, and Americans troops were back home. The writer spins a narrative of two possible decisions (one McCain's and the other Obama's) and purports to show how much better McCain's security choices are. The most serious problem with the piece is that the writer picks only the facts and evidence that supports his point of view and ignores other facts that need to be part of the equation, e.g. ignoring Al Sadr's withdrawal of his "fighters" during the time of the surge. Another problem is that the writer draws conclusions about the success of the surge that isn't shared by all--or even most--other people. The continued daily news belies the writer's conclusions. This is an especially troublesome piece in its bias particularly because its style suggests a simple narrative of facts.