quote:

Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger
By STEPHEN FARRELL and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. BAGHDAD — What’s going right? And can it last? Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004. The two largest cities, Baghdad and Basra, are calmer than they have been for years. The third largest, Mosul, is in the midst of a major security operation. On Thursday, Iraqi forces swept unopposed through the southern city of Amara, which has been controlled by Shiite militias. There is a sense that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government has more political traction than any of its predecessors.

Consider the latest caricatures of Mr. Maliki put up on posters by the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the fiery cleric who commands deep loyalty among poor Shiites. They show the prime minister’s face split in two — half his own, half Saddam Hussein’s. The comparison is, of course, intended as a searing criticism. But only three months ago the same Sadr City pamphleteers were lampooning Mr. Maliki as half-man, half-parrot, merely echoing the words of his more powerful Shiite and American backers. It is a notable swing from mocking an opponent perceived to be weak to denouncing one feared to be strong. For Hatem al-Bachary, a Basra businessman, the turnabout has been “a miracle,” the first tentative signs of a normal life.


“I don’t think the militias have disappeared, and maybe there are sleeper cells which will try to revive themselves again,” he said. “But the first time they try to come back they will have to show themselves, and the government, army and police are doing very well.” While the increase in American troops and their support behind the scenes in the recent operations has helped tamp down the violence, there are signs that both the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government are making strides. There are simply more Iraqi troops for the government to deploy, partly because fewer are needed to fight the Sunni insurgents, who have defected to the Sunni Awakening movement. They are paid to keep the peace.


Mr. Maliki’s moves against Shiite militias have built some trust with wary Sunnis, offering the potential for political reconciliation. High oil prices are filling Iraqi government coffers. But even these successes contain the seeds of vulnerability. The government victories in Basra, Sadr City and Amara were essentially negotiated, so the militias are lying low but undefeated and seething with resentment. Mr. Maliki may be raising expectations among Sunnis that he cannot fulfill, and the Sunni Awakening forces in many cases are loyal to their American paymasters, not the Shiite government. Restive Iraqis want to see the government spend money to improve services. Attacks like the bombing that killed 63 people in Baghdad’s Huriya neighborhood on Tuesday showed that opponents can continue to inflict carnage

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

The Facts in Iraq Are Changing

quote:

If George W. Bush was wrong about the surge from summer 2003 to January 2007, Barack Obama has been wrong about it from January 2007 to today. John McCain seems to have been right on it all along. When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" What say you, Sen. Obama?

Were you trying to provide comic relief with that one?  That has to be the most rambling, incoherent article I have ever read.  It was like listening to a drunk in a bar spouting off on why he hates Democrats.  Let me see if I can sum up the major points..........Democrats bad, wrong on everything.......... Republicans good, right on everything.  You know, there's a reason why most bloggers don't have jobs in real journalism.

I don't know about you but my favorite part is where likens the success of "the surge" to our success in Vietnam.  That is truly classic.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: NumberSix

Just because it is in the NY Times does not make it opionion,only. And it doesn't have to be near letters to the editors neither.

quote:

<snip>so the militias are lying low but undefeated and seething with resentment.<snip>  (just for one thing that may balance some of the very early sentences of infinite optimism).

quote:

ORIGINAL: pollux

NY Times (news piece, not opinion or op-ed):

quote:

Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger
By STEPHEN FARRELL and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. BAGHDAD — What’s going right? And can it last? Violence in all of Iraq is the lowest since March 2004. The two largest cities, Baghdad and Basra, are calmer than they have been for years. The third largest, Mosul, is in the midst of a major security operation. On Thursday, Iraqi forces swept unopposed through the southern city of Amara, which has been controlled by Shiite militias. There is a sense that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government has more political traction than any of its predecessors.

Consider the latest caricatures of Mr. Maliki put up on posters by the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, the fiery cleric who commands deep loyalty among poor Shiites. They show the prime minister’s face split in two — half his own, half Saddam Hussein’s. The comparison is, of course, intended as a searing criticism. But only three months ago the same Sadr City pamphleteers were lampooning Mr. Maliki as half-man, half-parrot, merely echoing the words of his more powerful Shiite and American backers. It is a notable swing from mocking an opponent perceived to be weak to denouncing one feared to be strong. For Hatem al-Bachary, a Basra businessman, the turnabout has been “a miracle,” the first tentative signs of a normal life.


“I don’t think the militias have disappeared, and maybe there are sleeper cells which will try to revive themselves again,” he said. “But the first time they try to come back they will have to show themselves, and the government, army and police are doing very well.” While the increase in American troops and their support behind the scenes in the recent operations has helped tamp down the violence, there are signs that both the Iraqi security forces and the Iraqi government are making strides. There are simply more Iraqi troops for the government to deploy, partly because fewer are needed to fight the Sunni insurgents, who have defected to the Sunni Awakening movement. They are paid to keep the peace.


Mr. Maliki’s moves against Shiite militias have built some trust with wary Sunnis, offering the potential for political reconciliation. High oil prices are filling Iraqi government coffers. But even these successes contain the seeds of vulnerability. The government victories in Basra, Sadr City and Amara were essentially negotiated, so the militias are lying low but undefeated and seething with resentment. Mr. Maliki may be raising expectations among Sunnis that he cannot fulfill, and the Sunni Awakening forces in many cases are loyal to their American paymasters, not the Shiite government. Restive Iraqis want to see the government spend money to improve services. Attacks like the bombing that killed 63 people in Baghdad’s Huriya neighborhood on Tuesday showed that opponents can continue to inflict carnage

http://tinyurl.com/66cc9v

Btw, I'm not posting this as an ex post-facto justification of the war. I'm posting it in defense of the hypothesis that the surge has worked.  Claims that the surge would not be effective in calming violence, or that it would fail to allow the Iraqi government the time & security gains it needed to get stronger and make the necessary political progress have now been shown -- empirically -- to be false.

People can debate the decision to go to war, or the problems of the post-war planning, or whatever, but on the issue of the surge, it's starting to look like the verdict's in. 

Especially since 30,000 surge troops are now coming home.

quote:

Wrong enemy, wrong country, wrong war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Wrong enemy, wrong country, wrong war.

Not really.  Wrong time, certainly, but that's about it.

Bush was about 18 months too quick to pull the trigger.  Had he waited, the world would be praising US strength and fortitude against a madman.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

One fact remains, we never had the troop strength to actually make the invasion and reorganization of Iraq feasable as long as we had troops in Afghanistan

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Wrong enemy, wrong country, wrong war.

Not really.  Wrong time, certainly, but that's about it.

Bush was about 18 months too quick to pull the trigger.  Had he waited, the world would be praising US strength and fortitude against a madman.

What, prithee; was this madman foredestined to do in 18 months time that he couldn't get handled in 20 some odd years?

6 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

No, you are supposed to plan and achieve specific military objectives....
http://rangeragainstwar.blogspot.com/2008/06/domestic-disturbances.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Saddam Hussein never lost his appetite for WMDs, and calculated (correctly) that the sanctions would not last.  Sans sanctions and inspection regimes, Saddam would quickly made himself appear to be a major threat to peace and relative stability in the region.

Had Bush waited another 18 months, the UN would have been compelled to acknowledge that the sanctions had failed to contain or moderate Saddam Hussein, and international opinion would have shifted markedly towards regime change in Iraq.

Had Bush waited another 18 months, the US would have been at the vanguard of a major international coalition, with several major military powers participating instead of just the US and the UK.  The burden on the US for the post-invasion rebuilding would be significantly less as a consequence.

Bush should have waited for the world to catch up.  Saddam was an evil man--it was only a matter of time before the world saw fit to dispose of him.

quote:

Saddam was on a starvation diet insofar as WMDs go. Never had any, wasn't gonna get any.

quote:

With the many out here that have such clarity of the future and such certain and inevitable outcomes, why didn't you guys see that Bush is and based on his history going to be an inept president, foriegn and domestic?

quote:

There is also no reason to believe he would build a chemical arsenal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Wrong enemy, wrong country, wrong war.

Not really.  Wrong time, certainly, but that's about it.

Bush was about 18 months too quick to pull the trigger.  Had he waited, the world would be praising US strength and fortitude against a madman.

What, prithee; was this madman foredestined to do in 18 months time that he couldn't get handled in 20 some odd years?

6 

Simple case of letting the pot heat to boiling.

Sanctions were breaking down.  Saddam Hussein never lost his appetite for WMDs, and calculated (correctly) that the sanctions would not last.  Sans sanctions and inspection regimes, Saddam would quickly made himself appear to be a major threat to peace and relative stability in the region.

Had Bush waited another 18 months, the UN would have been compelled to acknowledge that the sanctions had failed to contain or moderate Saddam Hussein, and international opinion would have shifted markedly towards regime change in Iraq.

Had Bush waited another 18 months, the US would have been at the vanguard of a major international coalition, with several major military powers participating instead of just the US and the UK.  The burden on the US for the post-invasion rebuilding would be significantly less as a consequence.

Bush should have waited for the world to catch up.  Saddam was an evil man--it was only a matter of time before the world saw fit to dispose of him.