Gee, I wonder who was going to "leave the interim government to its fate".   Let's try this:

"The end of December 2006 marks the end of the UN Mandate for MNF troops to be stationed in Iraq. The Iraqis should be given notice that that is a dead line (sic), by which time they should be looking after their own affairs, and if that has to be resolved by sectarian militias, then so be it; let them get on with it..."

Sounds like the author was willing to leave the Iraqis to their fate even before Maliki took over---i.e. Maliki would never have been elected.

And as for the Sunnis:   "Unlike Ron Davies, I don't believe that the Sunni population of Iraq deserve anything, they are the equivalent of the hard-line Nazis in Germany, in 1945".

The sentiment regarding the Sunnis was wrong then (21 Nov 2006), and has remained wrong ever since. And it's the total rejection of this absurd----(did I say stupid?, no, not I)---- attitude especially by Petraeus and now gradually by Maliki, which has accounted for most of the progress in Iraq. (The rest of it is accounted for the viciously barbaric and unbelievably idiotic behavior of al-Qaeda in Iraq, who fancy themselves latter day Inquisitors, and by Petraeus' insistence that the US forces get out of their own encampments and live with--and fight by the side of--Iraqis.

Neither has anything to do with the "Surge"--since neither one is dependent on an increase in US troops.   It is Petraeus' intelligence--in contrast to the totally counterproductive attitude by Teribus--, and al-Qaeda's stupidity which have made the difference. As I said, the "Surge" is irrelevant. Unless of course Teribus does not know what the word "surge" means.


So, Teribus, the only question now appears to be: would you like to eat your words with HP sauce, marmite, or do you prefer some other condiment?