Mike the Usurper wrote:
Oh those "phoney requirements set by Congress"? Those were stated by the WHITE HOUSE. That's not Congress setting anything. Congress has either been complicit in, or done an Olga Korbut level of spinal flexibility on Iraq at every turn.

OK, my point is that the political milestones aren't as connected to the value of the surge as a number of people are insisting. This was a set of tactical changes that were driven by experiences on the ground in fighting the counter insurgency. Instead of looking at the situation and saying "Hey, we've had some success here, is there a way that we can use that to acheive a positive result?" I see people searching for any angle they can to discredit that success because they've already made a political investment in the idea that success is impossible and they are not interested in data that contradicts that conviction. First it was "this won't work and can't work," then when that became undeniable it turned into "it doesn't matter because we didn't acheive these specific polticial goals in this specific timeframe."

Not only can we not "win" this, we don't have a clue as to what winning would constitute.

I think its fairly clear that winning would constitute a sustainable deescalation of violence and the return of a functional economy without the rise of a violent authoritarian state. It is difficult to achieve such a result and it takes a long time.

Leaving is a questionable enterprise, but based on military appraisals the resultant outcome may be perfectly managable.

I don't get what you're getting out of that link. They are predicting greater carnage. They dispute Bush on whether Iraq will turn into a sanctuary for Al'Queda or some other violent groups that are not called Al'Queda. What part of "there is going to be an outbreak of violence when we leave that makes the [current] instability look like a church picnic" is "perfectly managable?"

The assesment of Ricks and others is that the focal point of the Iraq war is forcing the US out.

His assessment is not that simple. Thomas E. Ricks: Yes, one reason that the city is quieter is because of the presence of American troops.

What exists now has not, does not, and will never function as a government, and clinging to that fantasy is about as useful as clinging to the fantasy that Frodo can keep the ring and do good with it.

It seems to me that creating a power vaccum and letting them slog it out is the most reckless possible way of resolving such a problem, and when other options appear to be available I don't understand why you'd choose that one.

Great, casualties appear to be down. That was dealt with earlier, along with why, and has zero bearing on where we go next.

You're focused only on some aspects of why that fit with your political perspective (such as the walling off of neighborhoods) and you're ignoring other aspects that don't fit with your political perspective (such as the tactical successes of the Army). There really are tactical successes, and you're ignoring them because tactical success conflicts with your previous convictions and not because they don't exist or because you've clearly established that there is nothing useful that can be extracted from them.

Until I see people objectively assess the situation on the ground today and conclude that there is nothing that can be salvaged from it at all I'm not going to be convinced that there is nothing that can be salvaged from it at all. I think thats only logical. I don't accept the arguement that the tactical success is useless because we didn't extract XYZ specific thing from it in this timeframe. Thats not the same analysis.

RE: The meaning of the NIE...