I'm bloody tired of the new "message" that the surge has been effective and that McCain made the right call. As I'm sure has been referenced in many prior posts, Sadr calling for the cease-fire among his Shiite militias is what contributed most to the relative calm in Iraq, not the presence of 20,000 more American troops.

As patriotic Americans, let's stop perpetuating this lie about the surge, and get back to what should make us that great nation: bloodless coexistence and mutual growth among the nations of the willing, and bloodless tolerance of those that can't stomach the likes of American Idol...

"Sadr calling for the cease-fire among his Shiite militias is what contributed most to the relative calm in Iraq, not the presence of 20,000 more American troops."

Always interesting to read another opinion.

How long have you been in Iraq, anyway? What parts?

Just reading the news, Wolf, from apparently more sources and for longer than you. For all I know otherwise, the whole place could be on fire, and Mehmed VI is still holding on. And you?

"from apparently more sources and for longer than you"

Naturally.

And you?

I'm just nowhere near as smart and well-informed as you.

I see you have been drinking the Obama mantra. Because he says that Sadar called a cease-fire, that is what did it. Sadar did not want us to kill him! That was his motivation. Cutting and running is not an option!

Oh yea, that was Obama's option! He would much rather be President than have us win the war.

From the Washington Post

"Since then, the cease-fire has been credited with helping to reduce violence -- as have Sunni volunteer forces allied with the United States and the addition of thousands of American troops."

""They can compete either through the ballot box or through militias," said a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The Sadrists think they could make significant advances at the ballot box as part of a backlash at the perceived failures of the government. . . . They think they made a mistake in boycotting elections in 2005."

A little googling will get you much more I"m sure.

So, whats the point?

1) Sadr's cease fire was instrumental in reducing violence.

-But only one of several key factors.

2) Sadr was looking for a chance to increase his political cred (incidentally he was fairly successful at that).

The surge may have pushed him this way. If so the plan was probably to wait out the surge and then remove the cease fire.