'US intelligence officials cautioned, however, that the documents were snapshots of two small areas and that al-Qaeda was far from a spent force.'

And the letters concern al Qaeda last November - not the problems (mentioned several times in this thread) that will remain long after al Qaeda in Iraq has gone.

For example: the continued bloody feud between Sunni and Shia (with the Sunnis now well armed), the possible return of those well-armed Sunni to fighting against the US once the al Qaeda outsiders have gone, the ethnic cleansing of some districts and the partitioning of Baghdad, the lack of political progress towards workable government, the imminent end of the Shia ceasefire in Baghdad, the lack of progress on repairs to basic infrastructure, the continued lack of basic law and order, the refugee crisis...

I think it's impossible to say whether or not the surge is working. It didn't have a definite start date, it has no definite end date, its goals change month by month, and data confirming those goals is disputed and unreliable. You can't objectively judge the success or not of such an ill-defined project. Maybe it's always been more of a PR stunt, for domestic US consumption. What real difference can even hundred of thousands of foreign soldiers make to what is basically a failed state?

To quote the Beeb:

'The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says the situation in Iraq is a lot better than it was six or nine months ago, but is far from perfect, even in Baghdad, which has been the main focus of much of the troop surge.

More than 30 people died in a car bomb in the town of Balad, near Baghdad, on Sunday during the first day of the US defence secretary's visit...' news.bbc.co.uk

Reports all seem to talk about how violence has fallen compared to peaks about a year ago, or maybe two years ago. If that's all that has been achieved, then the surge certainly hasn't worked yet - as the probable decision to keep it going (after what duration does a 'surge' become an 'escalation'?) described in that BBC story confirms.

The level of violence has been reduced by the surge...back to about how it was in 2006, which, as I recall, was worse that 2005 and 2004 and 2003. I don't see how anyone can say we are winning; we just aren't losing as fast. (But some will say exactly that, and many of them are the same people who still insist we were winning in Vietnam when we left. They still don't get it.)

Below from CNN

U.S. deficient against Muslim insurgents, study says

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military is seriously deficient in meeting "the threat of Islamist insurgencies," says a Pentagon-commissioned study released Monday.

The Rand Corp. report characterizes "U.S. military intervention and occupation in the Muslim world" as "at best inadequate, at worst counter-productive, and, on the whole, infeasible." The Pentagon asked the nonprofit research organization to review strategies to thwart insurgents.

But "it would be a profound mistake to conclude from [the troop increase] that all the United States needs is more military force to defeat Islamist insurgencies," Gompert said. "One need only contemplate the precarious condition of Pakistan to realize the limitations of U.S. military power and the peril of relying upon it."

The study notes that U.S. military interventions can be risky as well as costly because of the tenacity of jihadists, "infected by religious extremism." It says massive military interventions against insurgencies usually fail.

Looking at some 90 conflicts since World War II, the report concludes that establishing "representative, competent and honest" local government is the way to go.
~~~~~~~~
I have no doubt that bush will say at some future point that "We were winning when I left." Of course, that will be just another lie about Iraq that he has told.

'After months of declining violence, February is certain to be the third straight month to see increases in the numbers of Baghdad residents killed in car bombings and suicide attacks.' Is violence on the rise again in Iraq?

Taking down the walls would certainly be a sign of progress.

Political developments - Iraqi lawmakers pass 3 crucial laws.

Is the al Anbar 'Awakening' part of the surge?

The article Coldfuse links to says the surge started a year ago, but the arming of Sunni groups to fight al Qaeda started before then. Also, the Awakening doesn't involve a surge - actually it involves there being less activity by US troops, doesn't it? The surge itself lately seems to have been relying on the failed tactic of using airpower.

If the surge is succeeding, hasn't the withdrawal also succeeded, by some measures?

'When the Brits recently pulled out of their last base in Basra City late last year, The Independent reported that according to the British military, violent attacks dropped 90 percent.' Beyond the Green Zone

'...The U.S. is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars to pay the monthly salaries of some 600,000 armed fighters in the three rival ethnic camps in Iraq. These fighters—Shiite, Kurd and Sunni Arab—are not only antagonistic but deeply unreliable allies...

...Once the money runs out, or once they feel strong enough to make a thrust for power, the civil war in Iraq will accelerate with deadly speed. The tactic of money-for-peace failed in Afghanistan. The U.S. doled out funds and weapons to tribal groups in Afghanistan to buy their loyalty, but when the payments and weapons shipments ceased, the tribal groups headed back into the embrace of the Taliban...' The Calm Before the Conflagration

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- About 8,000 of the 30,000 "surge" troops sent to Iraq in 2007 will not go home as planned this summer, the Pentagon said Monday.


If we've had so much success, then why are our commanders concerned about pulling troops down and wanting to freeze them at at least the level that we had before the surge?

On the political front:

'Iraq's three-man presidency council Wednesday announced that it's vetoed legislation that U.S. officials two weeks ago hailed as significant political progress.' www.mcclatchydc.com

'...The Sunni insurgent strategy of flooding the U.S.-sponsored paramilitary forces with their own fighters appears to make the Sunni insurgency stronger than ever. Far from being a device for 'bottom up reconciliation', the Awakening Councils have added powder to the powder keg of Sunni-Shiite tensions.' Sunni Insurgents Exploit U.S.-Sponsored Militias

The Mahdi militia stirs...

And another iconoclastic view of The Surge...

How to Disintegrate a City

Trouble in Basra? It's a good job we British left

Last month, this month...

quote:

Attacks by insurgents and rival sectarian militias have fallen up to 80 percent in Baghdad and concrete blast walls that divide the capital could soon be removed...

'Warning sirens for bombs blared all day as diplomats and U.S. workers donned flak jackets and ducked for cover from mortars and rockets that poured down throughout Baghdad. Those U.S. government workers brave enough to ignore a lockdown order by their government and venture into nearly empty city streets saw a city under siege.

Thick billows of smoke drifting over the Tigris River after a blast-ignited fire were just one sign the city had turned into a combat zone...' Green Zone turns into war zone, Basra under siege