Who truly believes the "surge" has anything to with the decrease in violence?

...in Iraq? The fact is that the violence was decreasing in the Anbar province before the "surge" was put in place. I think people should study this very carefully. Is the increase in the number of US troops the real reason the violence has decreased? I think Democrats, such as John Murtha and others, should be very careful at accepting the White House spin on this story.

It seems to me that the "real" reason is a change in strategy, but not necessarily the surge. It was no coincidence that about that same time, Bush starting requesting humongous supplementals for the war in Iraq. It is very possible that the new "strategy" was to befriend the Sunnis, since it was obvious that the Shiite government, under Maliki, was not making progress in the war. In fact, they seemed content to let the status quo go on forever.

What was the new "strategy"? It was the typical Bush strategy - if you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. That is what the $196 billion dollar supplemental is being used for. It is not to equip the additional 30,000 troops. That is way beyond the total funds needed to simply fund the additional troops. It is to buy the temporary support of the Sunni tribal leaders and others until we can get thru the next election. I am convinced that is the primary objective.

So what was the purpose behind the new strategy? Primarily, it was to get a decrease in the violence and make it appear to the people back home that the "war" was being won. In fact, it is getting some decrease in the amount of violence. But we are paying dearly for it.

We have succeeded in ethnically cleansing most of Iraq. The 2 million that had left the country for Syria, Jordan, and other places are starting to come back into the country. However, they are not returning to their old homes or neighborhoods. They are returning to the friendly Sunni neighborhoods or friendly Shiite neighborhoods. For example, Baghdad has now become a majority Shiite city instead of a majority Sunni, as in the past.

Democrats should be very hesitant to accept the "surge" as the reason behind the decrease in violence. This White House is playing both sides against the middle and it is the American troops that are in the middle. This is a dangerous game they are playing and it is just a matter of time until it explodes.

Ceding patrols to those same leaders also has an impact. The fact that Baghdad has essentially been ehtnically cleansed of Sunnis is another major factor. What few Sunnis remain are living in rather heavily gated communities, let's say, so there aren't as many to be killed--they've fled or died already.

But it's impossible to say definitively that the surge didn't have any impact. Saying it was the sole cause of the decrease in violence is also extremely debatable, however.

Baghdad has been "ethnically cleansed" to a large degree. We are paying off both sides with more money than most of them have seen in their lifetimes. Meanwhile, we continue to pay $3.00 per gallon for gas and the dollars shrivels up to nothing, as we go deeper and deeper in debt. It has to stop sometime. It cannot continue forever.

Is there any real news getting out of Iraq?

the fact is that life still sucks badly for most of the people living in Iraq, IMO.

deciding to wait it out also help.

there has been no political advances. The decrease in local violence might be a combination of all the factors discussed and none of it matters in the situation there.