Petraeus has also flip-flopped his position on matters since he was tapped by the Bush Administration, so I’d take his view with a grain of salt. He’s seen what happens to folks who don’t give George the answers he wants to hear…
The problem is, Petraeus isn’t operating in a vacuum. He doesn’t have enough people to conduct his counterinsurgency campaign the way he thinks it ought to be conducted, and he’s never going to get them. And even if he could succeed on the security front, he can’t make any magic happen on the political front. He can’t reconcile Shi’ite and Sunni and Kurd. The real issue is that the animosities have so deepened, and the quality of life has so eroded over the past four years that I doubt anyone in Iraq really believes in our ability to put the genies back in their bottles. After all, we can’t even keep the lights on in Baghdad.
Petraeus’s position on matters hasn’t changed so far as I can see, rjung. He said the problem had to be solved by more troops, boots on the ground, and by gum that’s what Bush gave him - possibly years too late and far too few, but it’s technically what he said three years ago.
Whatever you might think of Cheney and his minions and the horrible war they’ve started, Petraeus is a military leader of unsurpassed ability and integrity.
Alexander the Great could take him, on a bad day! 
Improvement is measured as advancement toward some positive goal.
What’s the goal again at this point? That will make improvement easier to assess.
The goal at this point is to get a political compromise that leads to a stable government. To do that, you have to stop the sectarian violence so the political leaders have some room to bargain. You also need to give the people hope that their government is looking after their interests and can protect them.
Unfortunately, insurgencies aren’t defeated with a nice signing ceremony on the Missouri (or with a ‘mission accomplished’ banner hanging behind you…). It’s more fuzzy than that. The violence goes down. The economy improves a bit. People begin to have a stake in the future, and increasingly oppose those who are throwing wrenches in the works. There are major attacks along the way, setbacks in the political process, etc.
So I would expect a gradual change, not a sudden declaration of victory followed by full withdrawal. It will work like this: A region will be pacified. Local leaders will step up, and some troops can be withdrawn and redeployed elsewhere. Iraqi troops get better, and eventually displace American soldiers. Eventually, as enough areas are pacified and the Iraqi army gets stronger, you can start sending some troops home. Maybe five years from now there will be 1/3 of the troops in Iraq as there are today, and they’ll be primarily located on large bases. Okinawa would be a good example of that. Those 50,000 troops might be in the region for five more years, or fifty. If it’s fifty, it will be for the same reasons that there were troops in Germany, South Korea, and Okinawa for the same period of time - because the government and people truly want them there and they are helping to stabilize an entire region. If not, they’ll be pulled out as soon as possible.
There are political realities here as well. There’s no way the surge will still be going on a year and a half from now. The politics of a presidential election won’t allow it. So Petraeus is on a deadline. He’s promised to have solid results by the end of the summer, and that’s about all the time he’s going to get. By Christmas, troops will be coming home, one way or the other. Maybe not a majority of them, but a sizeable percentage. I’ll bet there are fewer than 100,000 troops still in Iraq by January 2008, no matter what happens on the ground.
I’m not saying the surge will succeed. I’m saying it might. Initial signs are positive. Petraeus has an outstanding track record with ‘nation building’. His was the only strategy that worked in pacifying the population in the early stages of the war. He deserves a chance.
Or let me ask this: If Bush said, “I’ve been such a fool! Rumsfeld was an idiot! I’m recalling General Shinseki and putting him in charge.” Would you give Shinseki a chance? Petraeus is the same kind of soldier. Ph.D from Princeton. Wrote the book on counterinsurgency. Disagreed with Rumsfeld every step of the way.
He should be given a chance.
While not official, this is a pretty exhaustive analysis of The Surge, as well an an overall assesment of the circumstances country-wide:
Patterns of War Shift in Iraq Amid U.S. Buildup
– bolding mine.
All else, pretty much as expected.
Much more at source…three page analysis.
What evidence is there that either of those things is happening?
I don’t want to see cherry picked quotes backed up by conclusions by some conservative pundit. I want facts. I want metrics. I want data. I don’t want to be told that Iraq is getting better, I want to be shown.
The fact of the matter is that “the surge” is just another thing I am supposed to wait for. First it was wait for reconstruction projects to finish, then it will get better. Then it was wait for the government to be elected, things will be better. Then it was wait for the Iraqi troops to be trained, things will be better. Then it was the government is brand new, give it some time and things will be better. Then it was “We are restricting insurgent movement through roadblocks and check points”, wait for the strategy to work. The fact of the matter is that through all of these things Iraq has not gotten better. You will forgive me if I don’t believe you when you say “Wait for the surge to work, things will get better”.
Oh ye of little faith. Don’t you see that this recitation of false promises is meaningless? We never had Gen. Petraeus before.
Just watch.
OK, Sam, Rummy doesn’t like him? Ten points in my book. Up. But I note with dread this admission:
You mean to tell me that the success of the plan depends on the American people tolerating and accepting an increase in American casualties? Are you serious? Sam! No fucking way!
Goodness gracious, no! Heavens to Betsy, I wouldn’t consider such a thing! Fuck that shit!
I love it when you talk dirty.
Has anyone found any coverage of pro-US rallys in Iraq today? All I’ve found are large anti-US demonstrations. Surely Maliki et al had some shindig to mark the special holiday, or not?
Typical of the liberal media, pro-US demonstrations breaking out all over, but not one mention!
Sam’s right though, it harks me back to a quote about Vietnam.
‘If we’d potrayed the war as important as defending Villagers than killing Communists, we would of done better at both’
US troops in Baghdad usually just, like Sam said, did hit and run attacks and didn’t hold any partrticular territory. For any meaningful progress to occur, people have to know that you’re willing to take a risk for them, protect them, help them rebuild etc, in order to promote backing of a particular Government. Besides, having placd troops in different areas of Baghdad, alongside Iraqi counterparts, makes it harder for insurgents to gain a particular area or get away with activities such as building workshops for IED’s and ammo dumps etc.
Just like they don’t cover those vital political reconciliation meetings taking place among Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds.
The success of the whole venture doesn’t depend upon US troops. It depends on the Iraqis coming to a political accomodation in the governing of the country and sharing the resources.
I wonder how that is going.
Alright, alright, compañero. Certainly didn’t mean to rile you up. But take another read at that particular post of yours and tell me it doesn’t bear some resemblance to:
Of course, I realize one of you was being jocular while the other one was wallowing in his own excrement. Not hard to figure which is which. Bushbots aside of course.
This doesn’t look good: Bomb goes off in Iraqi Parliament building (in the Green Zone, btw), killing two Iraqi MPs and wounding others.
And a major bridge over the Tigris got blown up too. (Same link.)
Think maybe this is the actual inspiration for the “Baghdad surge”? That the Bushiviks fear that the Green Zone is in danger of collapse? How do you say “Tet offensive” in Arabic?