Speaking as an anti-war conservative Republican, the failure of the surge is NOT that violence has come down. The failure is that the surge has been successful for reasons not connected to the surge, namely:

* Al-Qaeda alienated their base supporters in Iraq with overly-extreme policies.
* Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mahdi Army to stand down and avoid confrontation with western forces.
* American commanders used cash and guns to buy support from local Iraqi leaders in areas difficult to police.
* Baghdad residents have spent the last 5 years self-segregating themselves into ethnic neighborhoods (or fleeing to neighboring countries), a process which is mostly complete.

Having more bodies in Iraq to patrol the streets certainly helps, but it's not the main reason the violence has gone down.

But all the reasons the violence has decreased are merely temporary. Unless we keep force levels high in Iraq (say, for the next 100 years?), any substantive reduction will simply allow ethnic infighting to pick up again.

The only long-term solution to problem is a political one from the Iraqis themselves, but the elected Iraqi leadership hasn't show any evidence they're willing or able to do it, and the Bush administration has refused to use any means to push them to do it.

You can sneer "Defeatocrats!" all you want, but name-calling doesn't change the fact that Bush's Iraq war remains the worst foreign policy decision of modern U.S. history.

The surge worked? The GAO reported last September that the Iraqi government had only met three of the eighteen benchmarks set by Congress in June 2006. An independent commission assessment by retired general James L. Jones found that the decrease in violence may be due to areas being overrun by either Shias or Sunnis. In addition, last August, the International Organization for Migration and the Iraqi Red Crescent Organization indicate that more have fled since the troop increase.The White House reports satisfactory progress in only half of the 18 objectives.

The strategy is not vindicated; I wouldn't describe the surge as a success either. Defeatocrats? Please. Your optimism belies the statistics.

from FactCheck.org (a non-partisan site):
President Bush played loose with the facts in his address to the nation Thursday night (in Sept 2007) as he tried to convince the American public that the surge in U.S. troops in Iraq has made the country more stable.

He said "36 nations ... have troops on the ground in Iraq." In fact, his own State Department puts the number at 25.
He said “ordinary life” was returning to Baghdad. Perhaps. In fact, news reports describe the city as starkly segregated with Shiites and Sunnis living in separate neighborhoods, which are walled off from one another with huge concrete barricades.
He said Baqubah in Diyala province was "cleared." But the Washington Post quotes a State Department official as saying the security situation there was not stable.

He said that “the Iraqi Army is becoming more capable,” which may be true. But the Iraqi defense minister says it’ll be 2012 before the army will be even 60 percent capable of protecting the nation from external threats.

Mr. Whipple:

You might try being a "thinking Republican" in addition to being an anti-war Republican.

You're saying we'd have achieved the same results without any change in strategy -- which would put you in opposition to virtually every serious defense and foreign policy expert. And you totally ignore the dramatic strides the Iraqis have made in self-governance and providing for their own security.

Opposing having gone into Iraq is one thing. But to be willfully blind to the facts is deliberate dishonesty.

The GAO reported last September that the Iraqi government had only met three of the eighteen benchmarks set by Congress in June 2006.

Dan, it helps to argue with info that isn't almost a year old. The Iraqi government has met 15 of the 18 benchmarks as of this month -- quite a change from the old data you quote. And the Iraqi Security Forces have now taken over security responsibility for a majority of the provinces.

The Surge has accomplished what it was meant to accomplish, whether or not you and Mr. Whipple want to face that fact.

Are you guys also members of the Flat Earth Society?

Whether there are 36 nations or 25 participating in Iraq obscures the more important point that the vast majority of troops are from the U.S., with most nations only having a token presence.

The following figures are from the Wikipedia article "Multinational force in Iraq":

* United States: 154,000
* United Kingdom: 4,000
* Georgia: 2,000 (reducing to 300 by summer 2008)
* South Korea: 933
* Australia: 300
* Poland: 900 (complete withdrawal by 10/2008)
* Romania: 397
* El Salvador: 280
* Bulgaria: 155
* Albania: 215
* Mongolia: 100
* Czech Republic: 65
* Azerbaijan: 88
* Tonga: 55
* Denmark: 50
* Armenia: 46
* Macedonia: 80
* Ukraine: 37
* Bosnia and Herzegovina: 79
* Estonia: 35
* Kazakhstan: 29
* Moldova: 11
* Latvia: 3
* Singapore: 1

U.S. forces represent 94% of troops in Iraq. Most of the nations participating are third-world countries that would appreciate U.S. aid in return for token support of the Iraq war. Bush's grandiose statements of a coalition are way overblown.

Oh, and the figures above don't include the tens of thousands of armed U.S. private contractors in Iraq.

Holy Cow! This is been an American-led and dominated military action?

I had no idea!

Rational Person,

Name calling ("try being a 'thinking Republican'") and throwing out anonymous "serious defense and foreign policy experts" that you probably saw interviewed on Faux News doesn't make for a good argument.

And the "15 of 18" claim comes recently from the Bush administration, which has repeatedly moved the goals and has a penchant for trying to make things look rosy in Iraq.

"Thinking Republicans", I would submit, are those who have questioned the Bush administration's claims instead of simply repeating them as if they were a holy mantra.

"Holy Cow! This is been an American-led and dominated military action? I had no idea!"

Yep. Wouldn't know it listening to President "coalition of the willing" Bush, though.

Hmmm. Rely on State Department certification of benchmark progress, or anonymous crank citing Wikipedia?

Whom should I go with?

Hmmm. Rely on the Bush adminstration, which has been wrong -- horribly, wildly wrong -- at every step of this war, or the overwhelming facts from multiple news sources and NGOs?

Whom should I go with?

I didn't realize the NGOs were the certifying authority on benchmarks?

And the Bush Administration sure got it wrong with the Surge...oh wait! I forgot, according to you the Surge HAD ABSOLUTELY NO IMPACT! The change in American strategy and tactics had zero effect on the course of the war, and the plummet in violence was totally divorced from the work of the American military.

You'll excuse me if I don't follow you through the looking glass, Mr. Whipple.

That's okay, RP. Just keep drinking the Bush Kool-Aid for the remaining 185 days. It's easier than asking hard questions from a president who has been a complete disaster for America and the GOP.

Let's see if we can recap the highlights from the last 7½ years:

* My Pet Goat and that deer-in-the-headlights look
* warrantless wiretapping
* Valerie Plame
* Scooter Libby's sentence commuted
* soldiers neglected at Walter Reed
* signing statements
* loyalty oaths
* a staged teleconference with troops, staged FEMA press conference
* extraordinary rendition
* record oil prices
* record budget deficits
* record trade deficits
* no-bid contracts
* mercenary forces in Iraq
* contractors charging $100 a bag to do Army laundry
* legalized torture
* bin Laden still at large
* stem cell research vetoed
* waterboarding ban vetoed
* federal interference in the Terri Schiavo matter
* "Last throes"
* "Old Europe"
* "It's hard work"
* "Bring it on"
* "Yo, Blair!"
* "I'm the decider"
* "I'm the commander guy"
* "I'm a war president"
* "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"
* "So?"
* "You're doin' a heckava job, Brownie"
* Harriet Miers
* Cheney shoots some guy in the face
* the Military Commissions Act
* the end of Posse Comitatus
* American citizens arrested and held without charge or access to counsel
* let's hire some Heritage Foundation staffers in their early 20s to rebuild Iraq
* Supreme Court three times overturns Bush's Guantanamo detainee legal restrictions

Have I missed anything?

I don't have to drink any Kool-Aid, just pay attention to reality. You, on the other hand, are trying to change the subject to the whole of the Bush Administration.

I'm talking about the reality that we are winning in Iraq, not defending the Bush Administration. That you want to change the subject shows you are losing this argument.

You don't have to like the war to admit we are winning it.

I don't have to drink any Kool-Aid, just pay attention to reality. You, on the other hand, are trying to change the subject to the whole of the Bush Administration.

I'm talking about the reality that we are winning in Iraq, not defending the Bush Administration. That you want to change the subject shows you are losing this argument.

You don't have to like the war to admit we are winning it.

I don't have to drink any Kool-Aid, just pay attention to reality. You, on the other hand, are trying to change the subject to the whole of the Bush Administration.

I'm talking about the reality that we are winning in Iraq, not defending the Bush Administration. That you want to change the subject shows you are losing this argument.

You don't have to like the war to admit we are winning it.

"I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true."
- Lewis Carroll, 'The Hunting of the Snark'

:-)

"You don't have to like the war to admit we are winning it."

Well, then you and your beloved CIC ought to be able to give us at least some inkling when it will be "won."

Also whether or not some gross perversion of the English language will be required to declare victory. Just as when "satisfactory" progress on 15 out of 18 benchmarks came to replace the actual accomplishment of them.

MrWhipple,

You are spot on on all of your points. Although you were probably a little hard with the My Pet Goat comment. Did you include the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill and No Child Left behind on your list?

But if you want to vote for a fiscal conservative who is anti-war then vote for Don Patterson. He is a great guy. Granted John is doing a fantastic job, but my vote is going to Don.

But you are no longer in the OC so I guess my submission of Don Patterson as the anti-war candidate of choice would be extended to everyone else.

MrWhipple,

You are spot on on all of your points. Although you were probably a little hard with the My Pet Goat comment. Did you include the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill and No Child Left behind on your list?

But if you want to vote for a fiscal conservative who is anti-war then vote for Don Patterson. He is a great guy. Granted John is doing a fantastic job, but my vote is going to Don.

But you are no longer in the OC so I guess my submission of Don Patterson as the anti-war candidate of choice would be extended to everyone else.

So, what do we win in Iraq?

Well, it's reassuring that at least you finally admit we are wiinning, Dan.