Has the Rate of Iraqi Deterioration Subsided for Now?

[nodular]

Maybe its just my imagination, but here are my impressions. I would like to know what others think.

Since the Democrats swept the House and Senate, Bush finally admitted that the Iraq strategy was "not perfect".

As a result of the shock created in the White House by the election, two changes have been implemented. Unfortunately, these changes are 180 degrees out from each other, so the contribution from each one is not clear.

1) There is a troop surge in Iraq.
2) We are, for the first time, reaching out to negotiate with Iran to try to get their cooperation in reducing the violence.

Well, obviously, there is still a lot of violence in Iraq. But it seems to me there is less than I thought there would be by now.

First of all, there is less resistance in Baghdad than I thought there would be. Sadr, amazingly, has decided to cooperate instead of resisting. Already, we are talking about going to this outer province where the bad guys went to when they vacated Baghdad (OK, this underlines the futility of our whole strategy, admittedly.)

I am not saying I see long-term success for US policy in Iraq, because I don't. We have no long-term goal or exit strategy, quite clearly.

Just that the short term effect is better than I thought it would be (especially because the whole "surge" strategy makes no sense and seems to be asking for trouble on our part.)

Of course, even short term, there are bad effects visible from the surge. The US Army, the National Guard, and the Marines seem to be moving toward a situation where the troops will be completely worn out, for example---engaging in combat almost without a break now.

Could the more positive actions vis a vie Iran be a factor? I know, we have also done saber-rattling vis a vie Iran at the same time.

Just wondering if anyone else out there had a similar impression.

Also wondering what the implications of this (if true) would be for '08.

[lazer47]

1. And if you believe that

then I have exclusive rights to a bridge on Long Island we need to talk about you investing in

[nodular]

4. OK

You are not picking up the same vibes that I am.

[madrchsod]

2. on hold

the iraq`s have all the time in the world to wait us out

[nodular]

5. Agreed.

This effect (if real) is purely temporary. But could it last until November 2008?

[madrchsod]

7. no

we will cut our losses by next spring-there`s an election in 2008

[Xerxes]

3. Sadr may be waiting

till after the Surge.

The other difference is that the surge is putting more troops on streets and staying in areas after they are cleared instead of keeping them on bases. So it's not only a change in number of troops, but how they are used. In other words, the president has finally let the generals do what will work and stopped listening to idiot neoconservatives like Rumsfield, since they clearly didn't know shit about what was really gone and screwed it up. I just hope it isn't too late it to work.

[nodular]

6. OK,

but won't this wear the troops out pretty quickly?

[Xerxes]

8. I don't know

But I have a hard time believing that it will wear them down to where they aren't effective. Has their ever been a significant conflict that didn't wear out the troops at all?