Collegiate Times

While deaths and violence are down in Iraq, I think it is an err in judgement to attribute it soley to the recent troop surge. Muqtada al-Sadr's call for a cease fire and his "riening in" of Jaish al Mahdi cannot be discounted as a reasonable cause as well.

Good points, Billy. I think the thing to take away from the troop surge is that, at the very least, we have successfully managed to disrupt many of the day-to-day operations of both smaller and larger terror cells within Iraq. I think, personally, that the troop surge has given the Iraqi people more confidence, and as a result they are beginning to work together more to provide for their own safety and well-being. There is still a lot of progress left to be made, of course (and especially on the political front), but I think that the data we have seen in the last couple months suggest that the surge has had many positive results.

Too bad Iraqis don't want us there. They don't want our "help." They want us to leave, immediately. And they are opposed to the so-called "surge," believing instead that it has made security worse for them. All of this information is from prestigious polling agencies. But, you know, who cares what Iraqis think?

The really far left-Democrats would've been unsatisfied with the surge regardless of the results. I agree that getting this bill out in the open is probably going to backfire on them. The surge, combined with innovative COIN doctrine, is working...

are you so disillusioned that you still think military success is the solution? Yes there is some military progress, but with no political soutions, there can be no "win". i found the op-ed full of finger pointing at our polititions, but none where it counts, with the Iraqi Government.

Ostensibly, what our military presence is supposed to do is provide the requisite level of stability for political progress to be made. Whether or not we have been successful (yet) in that campaign is certainly a point worthy of discussion, but I don't think it's clear cut either way. Mr. Morris, your op-eds tend to demonstrate your political leanings, but I'd like to know which 'prestegious polling agencies' are reporting such statistics. Is it all Iraqis, everywhere, who want us out? Is it only the US prescence, and not the presence of the rest of the multinational coalition, to which they object? Is a belief that security has been made worse the same thing as saying that security has objectively become worse? Security for whom?

That's an old report - the polling data to which you are referring is out of date and not aligned with the troop surge. It would be more interesting to highlight data which reflects the CURRENT view of the Iraqi populace towards American involvement in the growing stability of many regions of their nation - while I'm sure you will find many Iraqi people who are anxious for us to leave, I'm pretty sure you will also find a fairly high percentage who welcome the military and the work they are doing to promote stability in that troubled region. This isn't an argument 'justifying why we went to war in the first place;' rather, it is to highlight the 'clean-up' job we are doing and how it is percieved by the people it affects most directly. Quoting out of date statistics and claiming that they support your contention that they 'want us to leave immediately' is intellectually dishonest - they HAD wanted us to leave, but the situation is now quite different than it was in June 2007 - only a handful of days into the troop surge was when that report you cite was written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802262.html Iraqi public opinion has been quite consistent since the invasion. This latest report is in line with that; they believe that the U.S. invasion is the root of all violence in the country and think national reconciliation is most possible if U.S. forces leave.

That's a little bit better, in terms of information. On the other hand, the ultimate point here is - what progress has been made? You charge that, if we just left, things would be hunky-dory in Iraq, the sects would hold hands and sing songs together, and the world would be peaceful once again. The trouble is, Iraqi politics don't (seem to) work like that. If you read Petreaus' statements, he makes it pretty clear that the goal of the surge is to increase stability so that political advancement can be made; once the Iraqi miliraty and police forces reach a 'critical mass' where they can handle the internal policing themselves, the need for a US presence will decrease and a troop withdrawl will begin. It isn't so much that I discount Iraqi opinion - I am sure that they know far better than I do how they wish to be governed. But it makes me wonder, with countries like Iran chomping at the bit to stick their necks into Iraqi politics in an unstable, distrusting atmosphere, whether the Iraqi people as a whole recognize the gravity of their situation from a global perspective. I mean, think about it this way - when you are learning to ride a bike and you take the training wheels off, the first time you probably fell. You might have fallen the second time as well. You wanted desperately to do it yourself - but you wanted your dad to be there to catch you if you should happen to fall. In a lot of ways, I think the situation in Iraq is similar - they want to do it themselves, and we want for them to be able to do it themselves - but Iraq can't simply just 'fall' and pick itself back up unless it has the resoucres to do so. A weak military and a meager police force would not be able to control the violence and anarchy which would almost certainly result in an Iraqi political collapse, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran sweeping in to pick up the pieces carries grave consequences for the balance of power in the Middle East and the world as a whole.

Fantastic image forensics tool: <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">pskiller.com</a>. Have you ever wondered if an image was altered with Photoshop? This website can give you the answer through content-level image analysis.