WAIT. WE'VE WON IN IRAQ?

A brief post from economist/blogger Duncan Black, a.k.a. Atrios, over at Eschaton:

Unconditional Withdrawal

The local Fox outlet just showed me clips of McCain saying (roughly) "Obama won't acknowledge that we've succeeded [in Iraq]" and "He's in favor of unconditional withdrawal."

If we've succeeded why can't we leave? Just who are we at war with and what conditions should we demand before we withdraw? Does any of this make any fucking sense at all?

That's the whole post. Click here to see it in overall bloggy context.

Right. Obviously, it makes no sense.

For one thing, Obama clearly doesn't want "unconditional withdrawal," whatever that means. The presidential front runner has been very clear on this. Depending on what speech you're listening to, Obama wants to leave anywhere from 30,000 to 50,000 troops in Iraq. Indefinitely. Call it what you want, but that's just not "unconditional." Nor is it "withdrawal," which is one of the big reasons I've been having a hard time getting on the Obama bandwagon: he says he wants out, but uses a rather Clintonian definition of the word; that is, "out" means "in," and, call me old school, I prefer my politicians to use more precise language, and by "precise language" I mean "tell the truth."

But beyond that, I'm really wowed by how McCain keeps claiming success in Iraq. Yes, sectarian violence is indeed down, but as far as I can tell, that has much more to do with Sunni/Shiite success with ethnic cleansing than it does with the "surge." And, make no mistake, sectarian violence hasn't ended. Further, spectacular attacks against US troops are also down, but my understanding is that Sunni disgust with al Qaeda collateral violence against Iraqis has dried up the terrorist organization's well of support there to a great extent. Beyond calming down Baghdad a bit, what, exactly, has the "surge" done beyond improve appearances?

The press doesn't seem to be shedding any light on the subject because they don't seem to be actually reporting much. And all the Republicans are doing is claiming success. Well, okay, how did this minor escalation called "the surge" actually function? I caught a bit of an interview on NPR's Fresh Air a couple of days ago with an Army counterinsurgency expert who had put some of his ideas into practice effectively over there, but the GOP isn't talking about him, and as far as I know, his approach has not been adopted by the Pentagon on any large scale in Iraq.

What's really going on in Iraq? Is the country stabilizing? How? Why? Again, there are some signs of political reconciliation between factions, but that seems to me to be more about Iraqi knowledge that Bush is on his way out, and the kinder, gentler Obama is on the way in. Believe me, I want an end to this insanity, whether its credited to Bush, or the Iraqis themselves, or happenstance--after all, "winning" in Iraq, whatever that means, will do little to rehabilitate W's overall record, so why not give him credit if it's due?

But I want to know the truth, too. Is that too much to ask?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$