It's so hard even to get honest information about what's going on in Iraq, and harder still to take any comfort in the trends we're told are the fruits of the surge strategy. Take the situation in the southern Basra region as a related example. It has long been held up as one of the only cases in Iraq where the coalition had achieved something like the victory they once claimed to seek, and an example of how democracy and political stability was achievable with a little patience and a smart strategy. But what did the Brits really leave behind there after the recent withdrawal of their forces?

One recent Associated Press story initially tries to tout the "remarkable" 90% drop in violence that followed the British withdrawal from Basra as though this were a positive omen for the future stability of Iraq. But what does this statistic really mean? Well, farther down in the article, it turns out, the main explanation for this trend is that (1) there are no more British troops left for the militia-men to shoot at, and (2) the region is already firmly in the control of the Sadrist militia, making pointless any violent challenges from other militias like the Badr brigade. Since Basra has always been primarily Shiite, naturally, there is less occasion for inter-ethnic (e.g. Sunni-Shiite) violence seen in many other parts of the country. So violence is down 90% in Basra? Big deal. If this is supposed to be a best-case scenario, then was it really worth a trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives?

Similarly, I'm sure that current reductions in coalition casualties and overall terrorist violence are, in and of themselves, a positive development. But does it have any correlation at all with the chances for future stability and democracy in the country, especially in the absence of any significant positive political developments in the meantime?

There is too much willingness on our side to be reassured by an incomplete and overly wishful interpretation of the situation in Iraq, as has been the case all along. The same entities who tried to tell us that Saddam had WMDs, who happily quoted Dick Cheney saying that the insurgency was in its last throes and that our campaign had just turned a corner, are mostly the same ones who now try to reassure us that the surge is working. Fortunately, there are notable commentators like Kaplan who've always been honest and shown the appropriate degree of skepticism. Otherwise, on even a question as basic as whether or not Iraq is now better off than it was under Saddam, I would take the opinion of the average American corporate journalist with a grain of salt.

If the surge is buying time and allowing breathing space for anyone, it's less for the Iraqi government than for the architects of this disaster to get out of Washington with what little is left of their reputations. Maybe some day they can try to blame it all on the Democrats.

My take on it is described in your last paragraph. Mostly it's political theater for domestic political consumption.

"Better tactics can't save a bad strategy" (Codevilla), but they can provide cover for the administration to do the right thing without any embarrassing mea culpa (accountability is not this bunch's strong suit).

Reading some other posts, it seems that many of us have reached the same conclusion about the real goal of the surge. It almost surprises me to see how little faith people seem to have in this administration, and how cynical we now all assume their motives to be. There used to be a few die-hards still defending the administration around here. Now, as they say, "not so much."

"the architects of this disaster to get out of Washington"

Is the AEI reincorporating in the Cayman Islands? The Weekly Standard moving to Palm Beach? Is AIPAC building a new campus in the Palisades? In fact, the architects of this disaster are not leaving Washington. I am puzzled by how many Fray posters seem to share this comforting but clearly false assumption.

Bush is not the "architect"; he is just the front man. Cheney is not the architect either; he is the project foreman. The architects of this disaster own Washington, and they are not going anywhere. Nor are their beliefs or intentions changing, nor is their grip on the corporate media any less than before, nor do they intend to get out of Iraq. Last year, the front man (Bush) was comparing Iraq to Korea, where we still have troops in large numbers after 50 years. Bush is not smart enough to come up with such a formulation himself; he scarcely knows what it means. He is just channeling the architects of this disaster. The architects are planning for the long term. They aren't leaving.

Proxywar makes a very good point which reminds me of how throughout the 90's all sorts of Democrats kept reminding Americans about how horrible Saddam is and how he has all these big bad weapons and in that way help set the stage for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As far as the Middle East is concerned these so-called "architects" have captured the imagination of almost the entire American political and media spectrum making everyone in it incapable of thinking of alternative ways to view the matter and find solutions based on a realistic assesments.

And that, like Proxy said, is not coming to an end anytime soon.

You make a good point. I didn't mean the term literally, but more in the sense of salvaging their own and their movement's power and popularity, and "getting out of town" without being condemned to eternal shame or even prosecuted. However you phrase it (others have done it better than me) the whole point is for them to avoid as much accountability as possible and run out the clock, most likely in the hope that when the mess they created finally melts down, it'll be on someone else's watch.

My hope is that this movement will be removed from power and never again taken seriously, so Wolfowitz, Feith, et al, can spend the rest of their days in a neocon circle jerk at the AEI or the Heritage Foundation, waxing nostalgic about their empire that could have been, and not troubling the rest of us. But they are so well-funded and well-entrenched that, you're right, they're probably not going away anytime soon.