k wrote:
I shall expect everyone who claimed that a positive Petreus report would serve as proof we should stay to shut the fuck up and realize that they really believed the second case -- that we should stay regardless -- all along.

Not necessarily. My view has been that we should stay unless it is more destructive to our interests and those of the people of Iraq to stay than it is to leave. The fact that we have had some success in curbing the violence means that it is not more destructive to stay than it is to leave. Basically, I think we have a responsibility to the security situation there if we can have a positive impact on it. Furthermore, I have some hope that the Petreus numbers are just the beginning, and we'll see further improvement a few months out. This is really still preliminary. Its really the earliest they could have possibly agreed to report and hoped of showing some results. However, that hope is obviously not solidified by this report.

I simply also suspect that our staying will make things worse, in a lot of ways, not least of which is the effect on the US.

This is the fulcrum of our present disagreement.

So here we are. Nothing's been proved. Nothing's changed.

I don't agree. There has been a change. The change is not as significant as Petreus would have you think, but the violence levels have begun to drop, which is substantial, as they have been going up steadily for 4 years. If we pull out it is certain that the violence levels will exceed their prior peaks. If we stay, it is possible that they will continue to drop.

RE: The Iraq war | Why they should stay | Economist.com