Decius wrote:

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.

Radical policy shifts on Iraq seem less reasonable with each passing month. A number of previous threads on this subject are easy to search for. I think this is going to present a problem for Obama, as previous Dem positioning in Iraq is going to get squeezed against improving news from the ground. McCain will easily capitalize on this.

And this would of course be wrong.

Core problems:
The Army is physically unable to maintain the current deployment status so a shift in policy is not only reasonable, it is required.
The primary reason for the decrease in violence has been Muqtada al-Sadr's decision to reign in the Mahdi Army. He's waiting for our shift which he knows is coming before taking further action to consolidate his power.
The main secondary reason for the decrease in violence has been the segregation of Iraq into unmixed enclaves. Areas that used to be part Sunni part Shi'ite are now all one or the other, either by murder or flight.
The recent "maintenance contracts" handed to ExxonMobil, Shell et al is going to make things worse. To operate, they're going to need security forces (Blackwater) and the Iraqi populace is going to see this as a naked grab to steal their oil. Again. People in this country are going to start seeing this as what it always was, a naked grab for the Iraqi oilfields, again. Put that together with higher gas prices and $100+ billion dollar profits for companies like ExxonMobil and that's a backlash loop.

Where this gets really messy is the following. As of December 31, the UN mandate that the US forces are operating under expires. That's why the White House is pushing hard for the mutual treaty. Maliki is also somewhat pushing for this because about the only real support his government has is from the US, but every other group wants nothing of the sort. We want 60 bases in perpetuity, they want us to get the hell out. These are not reconcilable differences, and without the UN mandate, the pretext we are there under expires.

Were Saddam and his kids pieces of crap masquerading as members of the human race? Yes. That part I'm not going to bother disputing. Are we safer now than we were before we invaded? No. Is that situation destabilizing the middle-east? Yes. Is that contributing to what we're paying for gas? Yes.

And oh yeah, remember the guy who kicked off this whole deal, bin Laden? he's STILL out there. Afghanistan? Getting worse. Relations with Pakistan? Getting worse. Iran? Please. If I were the Air Force, I'd seriously consider replacing the contents of "the football" with a copy of "My Pet Goat." I don't need W thinking "Today is the day! Rapture!"

RE: Big Gains for Iraq Security, but Questions Linger - NYTimes.com