A few questions from someone who's still trying to understand what the "Iraq" looks like:

1) Some have argued that you would expect a decline in violence during the surge, followed by an increase in violence several months later. Are there any indications that insurgency groups are biding there time for the surge to end?

2) If the answer to 1 is no, then should we consider reducing the troop footprint (or at least their deployment) so that Iraqi troops get experience as quickly as possible?

3) The latest grumbling I've heard on Iraq is on massive goverment corruption and "Mafia-esque" protection against corruption probes. Is their a sense that with violence declining, the Iraqi government is now prepared to tackle these problems? Or is the goverment avoiding them by consolidating power?

Sorry I'm asking questions that you may not have experience with, but I'm not sure who else to ask.... Media's basically abandoned Iraq to the election season.

Michael Yon called the 'insurgency' a civil war a YEAR ahead of the rest. He was right. Then we saw it truly was a civil war not matter how many times that we tried to put lipstick on that particularly insurgent pig.

I trust his assessment.

Does that mean all violence will cease? No.
Does that mean that there is not a chance as Mr. Totten says there could be another type of internal conflict? No.
Does it mean that all the work of building the Iraqi version of a functioning democracy is done? No.
That Iran will not try and foment some type of further cross border mischief? No.

It does mean this:

That al Qaeda's methods and ideology have backfired on them. Their cruelty and ungodly ways betrayed their true purposes which allowed the basic humanity of the American soldier to triumph.

That the Iraqis saw that they truly have the first chance in generations to chart their won future. Will it be perfect? No. Will it be pretty? Maybe not. But for the first time is is only on the nation as a unitary system of tribes or a loose configuration of villages and regions. The north in Kurdistan already gets it.

I am sure there are other things that could be said but this is a pretty good start for an old traveler such as I.

Bush could seal the US success by cutting the deal regarding troop withdrawals... but making the action metrics based instead of time based. This should have been done 5 years ago.

We need to be aware that the endgame is going to be at least as tricky as everything to date, and the US has a bad track record of stumbling at the finish line.

One problem we are seeing is that under Bush the State Department and CIA have effectively ceased to function. The Pentagon runs intelligence gathering, covert operations, and ultimately diplomacy. This was pretty much an eventuality after the catastrophic failures of the CIA and ineptness of State- the military has been the only effective branch. But that doesnt mean they are suited to negotiate the endgame in Iraq.

We need to seriously start considering what our priorities are after the bulk of the shooting stops. If its large military bases in Iraq operating as they wish... well that isnt going to happen, and if we push the issue we could well undue all we have done and then some. If its a stable, democratic Iraq fiercely opposed to terrorism and extremism (which it should be), we ought to figure out what force levels are appropriate as security gains in Iraq continue.

I suspect this is where we are heading de facto, but it would greatly ease anxieties if Bush were to solidify this before he leaves office. One 'freeby' would be for Bush to disclaim permanent military bases in Iraq. If Iraq down the road wants them, a later president isnt obligated to abide by Bush's dictate. Win/Win. But the Pentagon doesnt think that way, which i think is why we need a functional state department carrying out the president's gameplan, which hasnt always been the case.

If it's over, get us out. If it's not over, get us out.

It's a complete tragedy that we are pouring billions, if not trillions, of our hard earned money, into the sands of Iraq.

As Larry Hunter has said-

This November, I'm voting for Barack Obama.

When I first made this decision, many colleagues were shocked. How could I support a candidate with a domestic policy platform that's antithetical to almost everything I believe in?

The answer is simple: Unjustified war and unconstitutional abridgment of individual rights vs. ill-conceived tax and economic policies - this is the difference between venial and mortal sins.

Further down:

Or maybe not. But here's the thing: Even if my hopes on domestic policy are dashed and Obama reveals himself as an unreconstructed, dyed-in-the-wool, big-government liberal, I'm still voting for him.

These past eight years, we have spent over a trillion dollars on foreign soil - and lost countless lives - and done what I consider irreparable damage to our Constitution.

If economic damage from well-intentioned but misbegotten Obama economic schemes is the ransom we must pay him to clean up this foreign policy mess, then so be it. It's not nearly as costly as enduring four more years of what we suffered the last eight years

We NEED that money, for other projects, such as Gore's challenge on energy.

The cost? 1.5 to 3 trillion, over 30 years. We are spending the low end of that now, in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of jobs, created right here in the U.S. Much more energy independence. See, that's the thing - DEMOCRATS KNOW how to grow the economy, and especially know how to create jobs.

Take a look at the graphs

GDP, employment, stock growth, less debt. You've got an 80 year history to draw from. The figures don't lie.

That's why a died in the wool Republican like Taylor can vote for Obama, despite his cynicism about what Obama may do.

I'm going to dissent.

The war is not over. It's in an endgame phase, but unlike chess, the endgame can transition back to the midgame if one side or the other screws up.

While it's difficult or impossible to put an end date on a complex war like this one, I think there are two things that need to be accomplished before we can really call it "over," and this is complicated by the fact that one of the things will go almost completely unremarked-- and possibly misunderstood-- by the media in general.

First, there needs to be, if not a firm timetable agreement, at least an over-arching framework between the governments of the United States and Iraq, as to the number and disposition of our troops in Iraq. Contrary to what al-Maliki is saying in public, I don't think he expects-- or wants-- a complete withdrawl of US troops, at least not right now. This will be made public, I'm sure, when it happens.

Second, and almost as a necessary precondition for the first, there needs to be an agreement between the governments of the United States and Iran as to the disposition of the Iraqi state, itself. The last five years has seen a long, lengthy discussion, written in blood and punctuated by explosions, as each side demonstrated to the other that they're not going to get everything they want. Iran is not going to get a puppet government, a thousand miles of defense in depth, and a launchpad to attack Saudi Arabia; the United States is not going to get a permanent protectorate with a puppet government, either. This is the one that's not going to be made extremely public, because frankly, neither side can be seen by their publics to be cutting a deal with the other.

Once those two things are in place, though, then the war is over, because (assuming, of course, the Iranians live up to their end of the deal) all the various insurgent groups will be cut off from what they need most-- popular support, nearby government support, and money. If those things happen, I'll consider the war to be over, and a resumption of hostilities or insurgencies to be an effectively new war.

Now, I think we're in endgame mode because all those things seem to be in negotiation right now, and all the trends are still pointing in the right direction. There's a lot of noisy rhetoric, but there isn't even a Tet-style last ditch offensive going on. There are more high-level talks going on between Iran and the USA right now than there have been since the fall of the Shah, too, they just get remarkably little press... because I think both sides are happy not having to justify it to their native hawks.

Do I think this is a good idea? With reservations... yes. I'm a hawk, and I in no way want to see our footprint in Iraq eliminated. But I agreed with McCain's general outline of protecting Iraq like we protect Germany or South Korea since before he said it publicly in the campaign. With an agreement with Iran in place, we can do that with a substantially reduced footprint, and use those troops for other things (and/or give them a rest.)

I'm also a hawk who doesn't think that every victory needs to be punctuated with explosives. We beat the Soviet Union with a handful of proxy wars and spent and cultured them into the ground. If we can't replicate that with Iran we need to get better at this whole global hegemon thing.

Frankly, I think this should happen as soon as reasonably possible. Preferably in Bush's term, so that Obama can't (as easily) fuck things up by carrying out his campaign promises to withdraw as soon as possible.

(Ironically, having a public deal with Iraq and a private deal with Iran in place by November will make me measureably more likely to vote for Obama.)

Micheal,

Though I do not know you at all, as I have said a number of times before I admire you and your work greatly. That being said, at times I find you exasperating.

I think you and Yon are guilty of the same thing when it comes to this article. You are trying to overlay a western, even American perception over the situation in Iraq. You are trying to tell what year it is by looking at the second hand on a clock.

Deep down, you realize this and you as much as admit by writing:

None of this means terrorism and violence in Iraq are over. Violence is never over in the Middle East, and Islamist terrorism will be with us for years, if not decades. There may yet be another war, a different war, in Iraq.

Without a doubt there will be another war in Iraq, without a doubt it will be the same war, as will the war after that and the war after that as was the war before this one and the war before that one.

The failure of this administration to grasp the above, the grusesome self-delusion of the Neo-Cons that there was some sort of will that we, as an Empire, could impose on the Middle East, the Messaianic hubris shown by this administration in thinking that it could impose democracy in Meopotamia by fiat backed by occupation all fit in perfectly with the announcement that the war is over.

Great, but don't mistake it for what many of us have been calling for for years. DECLARE VICTORY AND COME HOME. The damage has been done and we will be paying for this massive strategic blunder, financially and strategically for decades to come.

#4 from hypocrisyrules at 5:46 pm on Jul 17, 2008

I have voted Republican for 40 years and I must admit that I am beginning to agree with Larry Hunter.

I am apalled with this Administration's mauling of the constitution, its Democratic-like fiscal and monetary policies. Their surrender of the Free market to the Federal Reserve's Commissar's growing control over the financial markets that seems to be based on the Peter Principal. (Thank God Jim Bunning has never been scared of throwing inside, high and hard.)

The candidate that the party has put up is an embarassment, but probably the best of a very bad lot of candidates. Can anyone seriously look at McCain and not have the phrase non compis mentis not cross their mind?

I feel like the Democrats must have felt in 1980. Dubya has been our Jimmie Carter and from where I sit, McCain is looking more and more like our Dukakis.

Larry Hunter is another hysterical paleocon who is willing to let the economy, the country, and the entire world go straight to hell, so long as somebody sticks it to those Jews. Excuse me, those neocons.

You Democrats are welcome to all the Buchananites you can eat.

#8 from Glen Wishard at 1:46 am on Jul 18, 2008

Larry Hunter is another hysterical paleocon who is willing to let the economy, the country, and the entire world go straight to hell, so long as somebody sticks it to those Jews. Excuse me, those neocons.

You Democrats are welcome to all the Buchananites you can eat.

Good work Glenn. Top quality name calling. I am a Republican, unlike, it seems more and more, anyone in this administration.

I'd think for the name calling to be considered "top quality", he'd have to throw in some Latin like you did.

#10 from bgates at 7:43 am on Jul 18, 2008

Thanks for noticing :)

"Bush agrees to time 'horizon' on Iraq troop cuts"

This is a wise move, for all the reasons i stated above.

If McCain wins, i suspect we will see something interesting. A lot of the anti-war critics will be hell bent on making sure we dont withdraw from Iraq under the banner of victory. Not sure what that would entail materially, but it could actually include insisting troops stay longer than McCain intends.

AP