Petraeus and Gates seem to be doing a great job with the mess that's been given to them. I opposed the war when it started, but I am happy to see that at the very least they have helped stop Iraq's slide into the abyss.

You'd think I might give Bush some credit for this...however, if anything, I think the recent turn of events is more damning of his presidency

It is great that now the counter-insurgency strategy seems to be paying dividends, but it also brings to mind that for *years* Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al not only didn't effectly deal with the insurgency or deteriorating conditions in Iraq...they actually denied the problem and claimed we were winning, in spite of the deadly reality on the ground.

Bush finally got rid of Rumsfeld...but only after huge amounts external pressure - from the electorate, from Democrats, from Bush's fellow republicans. If it wasn't for the people that stood up and demanded change from the Bush administration, I think we'd still have Rumsfeld and a sycophantic general in charge of Iraq.

If we succeed in Iraq, in many ways it will be inspite of Bush, not because of him.

Succeed in Iraq? Can you do me a favor and define just what you are referring to as success in Iraq? There will be no success in Iraq unless your definition of success is merely the removal of Saddam Hussein. He was a very nasty man, but he kept a lid on the rivaling factions within Iraq. Remove Saddam and it returns to the same warring tribal lunacity that has always existed there. Live in the middle-east and you'll realize that the democracy that America is always spouting is not part of their perspective, nor will it ever be...

The whole invasion of Iraq was a very mis-guided venture based on an agenda that has nothing to do with terrorism or national security.

I agree that had the GOP remained in control of congress last year that Rumsfeld would probably still be calling the shots and those who did not support "staying the course", the same course that did not include a surge, would still be called traitors by every republican talking head and every republican posting on blogs and message boards.

I don't know what success could ever look like over there or if there could ever be anything that could be called success over there. My own thoughts hold to the notion that we should divide the nation into three sections, allow UN troops to patrol the sections borders and then get the heck out. We need to finish what we started in Afghanistan, hang Osama by his balls for the pigs to eat and call it a bad decade.

I agree that the "success" of the surge should be a Democratic victory. As you say, this president and his SecDef couldn't manage to figure out to put more troops on the ground until the Democrats were breathing down their necks and Rumsfeld tucked tail and slouched off.

Way back at the beginning it was well known there weren't enough troops to keep the violence down but the decider guy wouldn't listen. It frustrates me that the Republicans have been able to reframe the issue to give credit to Bush. Charlie Gibson even said GWB should say "I told you so".

However, I believe we cannot succeed in Iraq because the invasion was immoral to begin with. What kind of success does one achieve from such an act? And it was Bush and Gates who said that the real goal of the surge was for the Iraqi government to build alliances and take control. That has not been done and I doubt it will be accomplished.

Bottom line is Bush should be embarrassed at any successes from the surge since it was not his idea or the idea of any of his "dream team." And the one true measure of success that he touted has not been met.