In this particular post I’m just pointing out that both the Bush administration and Mr. Maliki seem to profit from the motivation provided by threats to their power. Open-ended commitments allow endless procrastination.

You gotta be kidding. I was called impatient, naive, stupid, bloodthirsty, weak and treasonous on blogs for literally years, before what I’d been calling for became US strategy.

I always read Totten — he’s a godsend.

I don’t think most Americans would be too upset at these things:
1) Better them than us.
2) Where’s Iraq again?
3) Our “allies” would be more willing to help us in the future if they feel some of the consequences of inaction.

Unlike most of the right-wing chest-thumpers I have always believed we needed more men from the start

Who are these chest-thumpers? I don’t recall any pro-war conservative pundits or politicians claiming there were too many troops in Iraq to win it, or that the level selected by the DOD was always the baby bear’s porridge.

The political argument during the height of the insurgency was always one side saying withdrawal was needed and the other saying no, we need to win this thing. Bush put forth the surge plan at the advice of his military advisors anyway, and it was supported overwhelmingly by Republicans in Congress. Are the same “right-wing chest-thumpers” the ones calling him “General Betray-us” or do they consider him a hero?

Besides, If you supported more troops from the beginning, aren’t you falling into the same trap that you are arguing against now? Wouldn’t the Iraqis be too reliant on Americans from the beginning?

So the U.S. f@#’ed up, everyone knows that. A lot of time was wasted, but now the counter-insurgency begins. So lets break out the text book and put boots on their necks. Better late then never.

People don’t take risks if they know for sure that they are going to lose. Thats how tribesmen in Bagdhad felt about Al-qaeda. You should read Totten’s blog. Its a remarkable read anyway, just to get a taste of day-to-day life in Iraq.

Obviously the average Iraqi pays little attention to US politics: the average American doesn’t, either. But we’re talking about Maliki not the average Iraqi. Maliki knows the clock is ticking on his security blanket. And knowing that it is unlikely he’ll get another blank check after November, Maliki has finally, at long last, begun to use the army we bought for him.

People don’t take risks until they have to So long as we hold Maliki’s hand, and assured him of perpetual handholding in the future, he has no reason to take risks.

I think you are overestimating the interest in, or access to American politics by everyday Iraqis in Bagdhad who have been under siege by Al qaeda for 4 years. Anyway, embedded journalists like Michael Totten have documented rather succinctly that a change in the rules of engagement of our Marines, a renewed commitment to holding down territory by extra troops, the recruiting of Sunni tribal leaders and reforms in the Iraqi military have made the successes possible. You can hear what the Iraqis say for themselves.

This theory that the Iraqis pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and whipped themselves into shape because they were afraid of the “safety net” of American troops was about to end, is unsubstantiated, as there is no evidence for this, only Democrat politicians and Mainstream Media pundits spouting out this talking point as if it is fact. Where was this safety net for the past 3-4 years? It doesn’t seem to have kept them safe very much.

Patreus deserves more credit than you are giving him.

Sooner or later the training wheels have to come off. Now that the prospects of an open-ended commitment are declining, it seems the Maliki government is finally ready to take some risks.

why is McCain’s open-ended offer to babysit the Iraqis for all eternity a better idea than Barack’s threat to take our Humvees and go home?

Because in actuality, the renewed commitment of the United States to support military efforts in Bagdhad is what has produced the success we have seen there recently. The citizens who had to fend for themselves against Islamic Jihadists had no choice but to capitulate, else face torturous reprisals against them and their families by militants who were more armed and more dangerous. Knowing that they could not lose against Al-qaeda is why they fought back, not because a desperate suicide mission was more appealing to them.

If what you say is true, then two things happen: 1) you would not see the Iraqi military successfully taking on insurgents, as they are in Bagdhad and Basra, and 2) Barack Obama is the ugly Meth-addict who’s mugshot is used to deter kids from doing drugs. He is the brown lung you show to kids so they don’t smoke. In other words, the positions he advocates would be so disastrous if they were put into effect, that the people of Iraq fear the possibility of his election. How does that make him “right on Iraq?”

McCain was correct that in order to prevail we needed a change in strategy. I supported that call, even when the right-wing chest-thumpers were denouncing me as a nervous nellie and just short of a traitor. McCain was ignored by Bush until the mid-terms forced a reassessment.

Now, however, McCain holds that our presence — and a guarantee of that continued presence — is vital to suppressing an Iraqi civil war. I know believe he may be exactly wrong.

Obama is correct that we should be planning our exit and setting that clock ticking. The ticking clock seems to have concentrated Iraqi minds.

Moreover, if one is to argue that Obama is “more right” than McCain on Iraq, then aside from just explaining why McCain’s position is incorrect, it is also necessary to explain why Obama is right. It could very well be the case that both of them are wrong.