Don't you get that you need to remember that this also includes the excellent counterinSURGEncy? Because it's all the same ...

The current state of Iraq has much less to do with the surge than the outcome of the 2006 US election.

Iraqis read the 2006 result as meaning that US public opinion was opposed to a long term occupation. That was the key change that led to the reduction in violence.

If McCain were to be elected the violence would immediately return to pre-surge levels as the opponents of the occupation would conclude that the only way to get the US out of Iraq was to force them out.

Each time McCain tries to claim that Iraq is calm there is another suicide bombing. That is not an unfortunate coincidence, it is cause and effect. McCain makes a statement and the opponents of Bush-McCain occupation act to prove it false. In particular every time McCain has opined about the opponents of the occupation being unable to act, they have acted.

McCain is not merely a senile old fool, he is a senile old fool whose election rhetoric is leading to needless deaths for which he bears as much responsibility as the insurgents. Over the past week McCain has proven himself to be desperate and dishonorable with his smear ad attacking Obama. One can only wonder what his desperation will lead him to before the election is over.

The truth is simple, Obama was completely wrong and everyone kows it.
Here is what he predicted priot to the surge:

Obama said, "It is clear at this point that we cannot, through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have, expect that somehow the situation is going to improve, and we have to do something significant to break the pattern that we've been in right now."

On January 10, 2007, the night the surge was announced, Obama declared, "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

A week later, he insisted the surge strategy would "not prove to be one that changes the dynamics significantly." And in reaction to the president's January 23 State of the Union address, Obama said,

"I don't think the president's strategy is going to work. ..... My suggestion to the president has been that the only way we're going to change the dynamic in Iraq and start seeing political commendation is actually if we create a system of phased redeployment.

In July, after evidence was amassing that the surge was working, Obama said, "My assessment is that the surge has not worked."

Obama, then, was not only wrong about the surge; he was spectacularly wrong. And he continued to remain wrong even as mounting evidence of its success gave way to overwhelming evidence of its success.

So what was the progressive leaders response to this, well as progressive party leaders allways do, they purge the history to delete all evidence of their failures, thus Obama went to work diligently purging all reference to his sorry predictions from the campaign site.

So in other words, Obama said that the surge wouldn't work. Meanwhile, Ezra Klein and Dylan Matthews have an article up in which they consult various people about whether the surge did, in fact, work, to which they gave a variety of answers. In response to this, you (BlackerthenObama) say "Obama said the surge wouldn't work, and it did" (shortened) and harp on how he continued to say it.

Can't you see that the very thing you assume for your argument is what's being debated in the Matthews/Klein article? Disagree with surge-skeptical assessments of Biddle, Ottaway, et al if you wish, but ignoring the whole point isn't going to persuade anyone.

Julian, you missed the point. Obama not only said the surge didn't work, he willed it not to work, so in fact the surge could not have possibly worked as people keep saying. If Obama says the surge wouldn't work, then it wouldn't work, all evidence pointing otherwise is simply a Republican trick we should not fall for.

So Obama willed his website to re-write history and remove his comments, thus erasing the real history (that the surge didn't work) and therefore allowing history to be re-written and making the successful surge possible.

So if the surge was successful, which Barack is not conceding at this point, but Barack will agree he was responsible for its success by re-writing history, once admitting he allowed the success to go forward.

Its not easy being God Julian, have patience with him...

Ezra:
Here's a suggestion for the Assignment Desk. Almost all your experts ascribed the reduction in violence, in part, to al Sadr calling off his forces, but only two -- Juan Cole and Micheal O'Hanlon -- gave any reason for him doing so.

Cole says its because the Badr Corp beat his troops, O'Hanlon says its because US forces intimidated him.

These two different reasons for the stand down have pretty big implications for whether or not said stand down would survive a US withdrawal.

Be interesting to know what the rest of the panel think of that question.