Chris Glenn Greenwald explains it well:

[...] If the violence in Iraq continues to decrease -- and even if one accepts the most dubious of premises in order to see it all in the best possible light (the decrease will endure, it's because of the Magical Surge, the de facto ethnic cleansing can reverse itself, etc.) -- that rather obviously doesn't mean that the war has achieved anything positive, either in that country or for our own. It just means that we have begun to contain some of the monstrous harm which our invasion unleashed there. [...] The best we can hope for is to reverse some of the damage that we did so that a Shiite regime far more loyal to Iran than to the U.S. can rule with some semblance of order. And to "achieve" that, we squandered hundreds of billions of dollars, thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians (at least), and almost every ounce of credibility and influence we built up over the last six decades. That's the best case scenario. But still -- we are hearing now -- the people responsible for that grotesque debacle and who cheered it on are going to be in a "powerful" position, and the people who thought doing that was all a bad idea will be in big, big trouble.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/08/iraq/index.html

Steve M. Nice selective quoting, Marc. You skipped this part: We've seeing a fair amount of triumphalism from the usual suspects on the right about the situation on the ground in Iraq. Premature, I think--in part because of the limits of the bottom-up strategy. We may just be in the midst of a vast Iraqi exhale before the next phase of the civil war. That phase could include renewed fighting between the newly armed Sunnis (70,000 strong!) and the sketchy Iraqi Security Forces...or a full-scale armed struggle for power between the dominant Shi'ites families--the Sadrs and Hakims--in the south. It is important to remember that most of Baghdad remains, quietly, in the control of Muqtada al-Sadr. If and when US forces start pulling out of town, we will leave the capital in Sadr's control--a fact that remains intolerable for many Shi'ites and Sunnis. Furthermore, the Maliki government remains corrupt and dysfunctional. The Iraqi constitution, imposed by the US, remains untenable. The quagmire is as mired as ever...I still haven't heard anyone describe a plausible endgame. And this: Let me reassert the obvious here: The war in Iraq has been a disaster, the stupidest foreign policy decision ever made by an American President. It has weakened America's moral, military and diplomatic status globally. It can not be "won" militarily. The best case scenario is a testy stability, most likely under a Shi'ite strongman, who will be (relatively) independent of Iran and (relatively) independent of us. I've been watching what's going on and trying to figure it out. I've ragged on Klein in the past at my blog, but I'm guessing he has it right -- both the positive comments and the negative ones. I'll admit I didn't expect the surge to accomplish anything, and it seems to have proved me wrong. But we still haven't secured the peace, and it still seems obvious that the whole enterprise was a colossal waste of blood and treasure.

Tom

These developments, says Klein, are undermining the antiwar movement:

Which is supported by the massive upsurge in public support for the war in Iraq. ;)

Xel Political reconciliation? I's just like in the 2nd Indochina War -all talk about improving numerics and ousted enemies but far too little focus on what is needed for America to be able to safely get out before it depletes its resources and political will.

Marc Schulman Steve M, Of course it's selective quoting -- geez, even the NYT selectively quotes. But I always provide a link to the original article, which can't be said for the NYT. And you did the right thing by following the link.

Marc Schulman Chris, Sounds to me like Greenwald is positioning himself as a victim of the surge. Would he have preferred that it not worked?

Chris Marc S., Thanks for repackaging the inflammatory old pro-war theme: Anyone who speaks out against the war would prefer things to be worse So let's ignore that part of your comment and focus on the assumption in your 2nd sentence that the escalation has indeed worked. While there may be a drop in violence, the goal of the "surge" was political reconciliation. That still hasn't happened. The escalation is still a failure, and the war is still a net disaster by any reasonable criteria. George Will:

The purpose of the surge, they said, is to buy time -- "breathing space," the president says -- for Iraqi political reconciliation. Because progress toward that has been negligible, there is no satisfactory answer to this question: What is the U.S. military mission in Iraq? Many of those who insist that the surge is a harbinger of U.S. victory in Iraq are making the same mistake they made in 1991 when they urged an advance on Baghdad, and in 2003 when they underestimated the challenge of building democracy there. The mistake is exaggerating the relevance of U.S. military power to achieve political progress in a society riven by ethnic and sectarian hatreds. America's military leaders, who are professional realists, do not make this mistake.

C Stanley Chris, I think anyone who is declaring the surge to be a complete success is overstating it quite a bit, and I think it's right to point out the need for political reconciliation. But it seems perfectly obvious to me that the situation of better security and decreased violence was a necessary precursor before poltical reconciliation could begin, so I've never understood how naysayers could overlook that (to me, obvious) point and downplay the type of progress that has been made. It's step one, plain and simple. Will we get to step two? I have no idea- but the military part has accomplished much of what the military part could do, and needed to do, as a precursor to the rest.

Tully While there may be a drop in violence, the goal of the “surge” was political reconciliation. That still hasn’t happened. The escalation is still a failure, and the war is still a net disaster by any reasonable criteria. By what "reasonable criteria?" Yours? How reasonable are they? We won't know unless you cite them. Talk is cheap--at least from those in the US sitting in their comfy chairs. You complain that Marc is assigning a "desire to lose" stance to the doctrinally (even reflexively) anti-war writers who can not seem to ever find a success in Iraq, yet your complaint seems somewhat self-serving in that regard. I have first-hand reports of surge success and political reconciliation in Iraq in many parts of the country. Did you expect it would be something that occured spontaneously everywhere, all at once? That the entire populace would suddenly embrace, then hold hands and break into a lengthy chorus of Kumbaya? I ask again, what "reasonable criteria" are you using? Because under that standard, our own nation has only rarely been the UNITED States. I would say that success in Iraq is not going to resemble the artificial and unrealistic "reasonable criteria" of the anti-war left. And I have said so since before the war began.

Chris

I would say that success in Iraq is not going to resemble the artificial and unrealistic “reasonable criteria” of the anti-war left.

It is not artificial and unrealistic to expect that Iraq should be better off today than it was in February 2003. It's fairly clear to me that Iraq is worse off now given the death toll from our invasion and the subsequent ethnic cleansing, the explosion in foreign fighters in Iraq, the lack of electricity/steady water/food/health care/infrastructure. Strategically we've strengthened Iran, alienated our allies, and created another "cause celeb" for Muslim extremists around the globe. Where's the upside after $1.5 trillion, 100s of thousands of Iraqis dead and thousands of American soldiers dead?

Tully Try specific metrics with actual references that demonstrate what you're claiming, Chris. You know, EVIDENCE. Because you're making claims without showing any evidence, and as I mentioned, I get first-hand reports from people actually IN Iraq. They don't say what you say. And they would seem to be in a better position to know than you. Note above snark about comfy chair critics. Also note my continual points just about everywhere about simplistic rhetorical posturing. Here, I'll even give you a pointer. Start with life under Saddam as the relevant baseline reference.

Interested

It is not artificial and unrealistic to expect that Iraq should be better off today than it was in February 2003.

I agree with that, I also see the anti-war crowd with their ever moving complaint of the month. They go on about the violence levels, which are accurate and right to complain about - however when violence levels drop, they then move to complain about something else without acknowledging that what they used to complain about is a different scenario. If you want the pro-war crowd to be honest and forthright and see the war for what it is, the anti-war crowd should live up to the same levels.

Chris Tully, I'll point you again to the poll by D3 Systems: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/19_03_07_iraqpollnew.pdf Feel free to bring your own EVIDENCE (you know, besides cryptic talk of first-hand reports) to the conversation at any time.

C Stanley Agree with Tully and Interested. Moving the goalposts was an apt criticism of the pro-war side, and now it applies equally to the antiwar. For example, Brookings has power levels up 20% now as compared to Saddam era, and a few other metrics comparing favorably too. Other metrics still definitely worse than they were before the war- so I'm not trying to claim a rosy picture. But I'm wondering, if education, economy, healthcare all continue to improve, then where will the goalposts be moved next? I think your last point makes sense if you phrase it this way, Chris: Even if life for the average Iraqi ends up better than it was under Saddam, was it worth the cost? And frankly, I don't think we'll know that for decades, until we see whether or not we actually get to that point and whether or not that has a ripple effect of stabilization and progress in the Middle East.

Chris Interested, Since before the Petraeus report (and I'm sure earlier), I've seen the antiwar crowd complaining about the lack of political progress. So your notion that there is an inconsistency on this issue is flat wrong. Just do a quick Google search for [lack of political progress Iraq] Aug. 2007: "We're just years too late changing out tactics," while Obama argued "it doesn't change the underlying assessment that there's not a military solution to the situation in Iraq. The underlying political dynamic has not changed." July 2007: "Mr. Ambassador, I believe that the President’s policy, which you are being asked to execute, is based on a fundamentally flawed premise. ‘If we just give the central government time, it will secure the support and trust of all Iraqis.’ In my judgment, that will not happen. There seems to be no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people, and no capacity on the part of the central government to deliver basic security and services. And I see no prospect of building that trust and capacity any time soon." - Joe Biden There's more if you care to look... but that's two high profile examples.

Tom Does any of this talk of "metrics" even matter? I've always gotten the impression that debates about the conditions in Iraq are in fact debates about the wisdom of the Iraq War in general. There's really no getting past it. I'll never be able to see the situation clearly because I'm seeing it through a strongly anti-war lens.

Interested

So your notion that there is an inconsistency on this issue is flat wrong.

Before bothering to read your comment - answer this. Are you now just talking just political progress or violence levels (which I mentioned).

Chris Tom, Save some huge event on the ground in Iraq, the dynamic between antiwar and prowar factions remain the same. If you think the war is worth it, then decreased violence probably means we should stay, the same goes for increased violence. If you don't think it's worth it, then decreased violence could be even more reason to leave, the same goes for increased violence. Note: I'm badly paraphrasing Matthew Yglesias.

Chris Interested, I thought you were noting an antiwar obsession with the level of violence, while ignoring political reconciliation.

kritter Its great that the level of violence is down, and militarily Petraeus' plan is working. We still are spending 8-10 billion a month there, which makes the 23 billion the prez and congress are bickering about sound like chicken feed. Paying for the war has caused the national debt to balloon to over 9 trillion. Practically speaking, we can't afford it.

Chris Check this chart out: http://www.solarpowerrocks.com/fun/suckfiles/image006.gif It compares our spending in Iraq to our spending on energy R&D.

Tully I debunked that poll on both relevance and essentials when you waved it around before, Chris. It doesn't mean anything. Holding up a rock and calling it a King doesn't give it ruling qualities. Try again. With facts and verifiable sourcing. CURRENT sourcing at that--that poll is also now sadly out of date. My information mostly comes from people actually in Iraq, not third-hand anonymously via outdated polls that don't (won't, maybe can't) supply their base data and are very unclear about their methodology. You can get one guy's take on the current situation in his area here. It's not in the least cryptic, and it's not classified or I wouldn't (couldn't) link it. He spent most of the war in both Afghanistan and Iraq before this latest assignment, which he took after leading the Karbala PRT for over a year. I also have friends and associates in assorted units including the 1st Infantry, 3rd Cavalry, NG, AF, and more that are either over there now, or have done one or more recent tours. I stay in touch with them. I have found them immensely more dependable than both the MSM and the politicians (either side of the aisle) in providing accurate information. So sneer away at my sources. For the most part they're actual soldiers in Iraq, and in the future I will be sure to note that you're dissing our soldiers. While your mileage may vary, IMHO the info from any one of them is worth more than the pontificating partisanship of a dozen Obamas and Bidens. Paying for the war has caused the national debt to balloon to over 9 trillion. Practically speaking, we can’t afford it. News flash--the national debt will keep rising in dollar terms until SS begins trust fund drawdown, regardless. This year's deficit numbers are relatively modest in historical terms, and actually lower than those of the first Clinton admin before the dotcom tax-revenue bubble kicked in. The relevant figure for external national debt is "debt held by the public" as measured in real GDP terms--and it's actually declined since peaking in 2005. IOW, don't blame the war for program entitlement "debt." Stating the debt in dollar terms make it sound larger than it is (which is still pretty darn big) but the relevant measure is %RGDP.

Chris

So sneer away at my sources. For the most part they’re actual soldiers in Iraq, and in the future I will be sure to note that you’re dissing our soldiers.

Our responsibility is to the people of Iraq more than our occupying soldiers. And are you seriously suggesting that I should take your anecdotal evidence over that of a poll?

Interested

And are you seriously suggesting that I should take your anecdotal evidence over that of a poll?

Polls had Kerry winning easily.