By the way, did you actually read the link that I provided you? Or are you still adamant about living in your little fantasyland?

Skippy if you read above the surge was about implementing a counterinsurgency strategy that had its roots back in 2005 started showing signs of success in 2006 and it was decided to back it with more troops in 2007. The more troops were made available by extensions and early deployments of troops either already there or going.

If anyone argues that more troops in Iraq was the answer they are as clueless as the people arguing for more troops in Afghanistan. The surge was about increasing troop numbers only after a force wide strategy was implemented.

Your withdrawals will be coming next year, the only thing at issue is what the narrative of those withdrawals will be. I would be very surprised if Petraeus announces any withdrawals before the election because that could be interpreted as him trying to influence the election. Thus that is why he has a force level freeze going on.

I would not even be bringing up this issue if Obama would give credit where credit is due which is to the US military for implementing and executing a strategy with much blood, sweat, and tears that leaves the US in a position to leave Iraq as a sustainable country, no longer a threat to its neighbors, and friendly to the US.

As best I can piece it together, what actually seems to have happened was that the escalation troops began by disarming the Sunni Arabs in Baghdad. Once these Sunnis were left helpless, the Shiite militias came in at night and ethnically cleansed them. Shaab district near Adhamiya had been a mixed neighborhood. It ended up with almost no Sunnis. Baghdad in the course of 2007 went from 65% Shiite to at least 75% Shiite and maybe more.

Bottom line, the debate is not about the surge. Its about the United States continuing to be stuck in a worthless Arab country, defending those same worthless Arabs who after over 5 years are still not ready to take on the job themselves. United States interests in Iraq are already accompished. From this point on all we are doing is enabling Iraqi objectives and those are not necessarily aligned with the those of the US. There is no “victory” to win-from our standpoint, which is the only one that matters-I could care less about the Iraqis-we have already succeeded.

John McCain wants to stay in Iraq forever. Obama for all his faults, realizes that being in Iraq is not in the national interest and never was. And please spare me the “central front in the war on terrorism” analogy, because that one is not true either.

Anybody who aspires to have even a scintilla of objectivity in their perspectives on Iraq should by now have learned to take with fist full of salt anything a neoconservative says. I’m afraid evolution hasn’t provided me with the requisite number of digits to count the number of times that neocons have trumpeted success was just around the corner, only to see them splatter egg all over their face yet again.

Second. I’m afraid the quote you provide from the AP does nothing to bolster your case GI. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that your’re showing hints of disingenousness. You see, if you actually read the excerpt, it’s the BUSH WHITE HOUSE’S progress assessment of Iraq’s political progress. It should be patently obvious to anybody that Bush officials would undoubtedly say that 15 of the 18 benchmarks have been “satisfactorily” met.

If you want a summary of what GAO recently had to say about Iraq’s political and economic progress go here:

nytimes.com/2008/06/24/world/middleeast/24gao.html

In regards to benchmarks 15/18 of the original benchmarks have been met.

The White House sees the progress in a particularly positive light, declaring in a new assessment to Congress that Iraq’s efforts on 15 of 18 benchmarks are “satisfactory” — almost twice of what it determined to be the case a year ago. The May 2008 report card, obtained by the Associated Press, determines that only two of the benchmarks — enacting and implementing laws to disarm militias and distribute oil revenues — are unsatisfactory. [AP]

Here is a good quick assessment about the benchmarks:

If the Dems could no longer bite, they could certainly still bark. In the wake of the September testimony, anti-war lawmakers and media outlets refused to let up on the benchmark mantra. For them, victory or defeat in Iraq hung on those 18 points. Party big shots like Harry Reid and Joe Biden publicly cited the failure to meet the benchmarks as evidence that Iraq was hopeless. House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn issued a statement saying: “Despite the clear evidence that the Iraqi government has failed to make the necessary political progress and deliver on 15 of 18 benchmarks outlined by the Bush administration, the president wants to establish a permanent presence or ‘enduring relationship’ in Iraq, continuing to sacrifice an unacceptable level of American blood and treasure.”

Well, if the benchmarks were all-important to Democrats in the fall of 2007, they have become meaningless to them in 2008. When is the last time you’ve heard a benchmark reckoning from Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi? The reason for the deafening silence on this matter is simple. The military and political progress in Iraq has proved so monumental that the majority of the benchmarks have now been met.

Seven of the 18 benchmarks relate to Iraq’s national security. We can just about put a check next to each one. We can even look at some of those and marvel at the low expectations behind them. Number 9, for example: “Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.” There are far more than three battle-ready brigades in Baghdad. The galvanization of Sunni Awakening groups who have wrested their country back from al-Qaeda and the decisive efforts of Iraqi forces in Basra and Sadr City have been the two most vital developments of the entire post-Saddam period.

The other eleven benchmarks are the political ones. And these are not so easily sniffed at. However, with Iraq’s parliament passing three critical laws in February and the Maliki government’s surprising tenacity, the four most challenging of these benchmarks have been met: a plan for provincial governance, de-Baathification reform, an amnesty for former insurgents, and legislation on the procedures to form semiautonomous regions.

Of the remaining benchmarks, some were always too ill-defined to be worthwhile. (Consider 18, for example: “Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi Security Forces.” Can we even say with confidence that America’s political authorities are not making false accusations against our own armed forces?) Others are also subjective, but admittedly important — equality under the law being one. And on these there is continued and demonstrable progress.

Robbed of benchmark-rage, the Democrats have been floundering in their search for a substantive argument against the evident progress in present-day Iraq. Hoisted by their own petard, the anti-war crowd has become the enemy of cold, hard facts. Today they talk of John McCain’s “neo-imperial” ambition to keep peacetime troops in Mesopotamia, as if the U.S. didn’t already have thousands of troops stationed around the globe serving in just that capacity. [Pajamas Media]

That is why you don’t hear Democrats bring up benchmarks anymore. There is still plenty of work to be done for sure but for anyone to claim there hasn’t been significant political progress in Iraq to coincide with the surge is once again either ignorant or dishonest.

In regards to Kirkuk that city is an extremely complex issue that will not be easily resolved. I served before in the Kirkuk sector and actually the last day I spent in Iraq was in Kirkuk because I flew out of Iraq from the airfield there. So I know Kirkuk quite well.

The Kurds will keep delaying any resolution on Kirkuk to buy time to get more Arabs that were moved there during the Saddam era to move out to be replaced by the Kurds that were forcibly removed by Saddam. The Kurds want to control Kirkuk because of the oil fields outside the city. Kirkuk is more then just an Iraqi issue but a regional issue as well with Turkey who doesn’t want Kurdish control of Kirkuk. There are many more issues but bottomline like many issues in Iraq this one will not be solved by an artificial timetable.

However notice from your NY Times report the Iraqis are fighting their issues between each other in the parliament instead of in the streets with guns which is just another sign of the political progress in Iraq.

Morning Calm is right to argue that in terms of meeting the political benchmarks that the “surge” was suppose to make possible much still needs to be done.

Consider that on July 24, 2008, the NYT reports that:

“Iraq’s president vetoed legislation on provincial elections on Wednesday, sending it back to lawmakers for revisions as political leaders continued to try to strike a deal that would allow the vote to be held this year as planned.

Provincial elections are seen as central to political progress in Iraq, but their timing was thrown into doubt on Tuesday when Kurdish lawmakers boycotted the parliamentary vote on the legislation…

Mr. Talabani (Iraq’s president) office earlier in the day had issued a statement promising a veto, saying that the legislation in its current form would deepen ‘the sectarian and national isolation and expand the circle of extremism.’

Iraqi Kurds have opposed the legislation because it contains an article on the multiethnic…city of Kirkuk that they do not accept…

The Kurds believe that Kirkuk…should be part of the Kurdish enclave in northern Iraq. Arabs and Turkmens disagree, saying power should be evenly divided.”

It would seem that whatever tactical successes our brave men and women have accomplished in Iraq, there are clearly other dynamics at play that do not follow the logic of the US military’s plans.