This is getting a bit boring. Doug R and other lockstep Bushites still parrot the old line about the "surge" making Sunni assistance to the "Coalition" possible. ( "When will they ever learn?")

Precisely backwards. The Sunni disgust and loathing for al-Qaeda,--which predates the "surge"--- caused, as I've noted more than once, by al-Qaeda's insistence on enforcing their own brand of Islam by maiming and murder, was what made the success in Iraq possible. The other element was Petraeus' realization that he had to get his troops out of their heavily fortified areas--and get them to fight by the side of Iraqis. The "surge" was incidental--and likely not even necessary--Petraeus' intelligence and al-Qaeda's stupidity made the improvement in Iraq--and Petraeus would have needed no more troops--no "surge"-- to achieve it.

It's also a question as to how durable the success is--since al-Sadr and his "army" are still there, having made the tactical decision to lie low for a bit--and especially since it looks like the vaunted provincial elections will not take place this fall. Which in turn has a lot to do with the fact that, as I've mentioned, the Kurds in "Kurdistan" want nothing to do with "Iraq".





By the way, thanks, Teribus, for giving more of your Sunni-Nazi quote, placing it further into context. Too bad the context does nothing but cement your obvious punitive attitude toward all Iraqi Sunnis---exactly the wrong attitude when trying to break up a Sunni insurgency.

Petraeus, on the other hand, rejecting totally your meat-cleaver approach to diplomacy, has looked for and found common cause with most Sunnis--and not by requiring them to come begging to him.

Seems it's very good thing that you are far from the levers of power.