Since the surge began, more than 1,000 American troops have died, and despite the improved security situation, the Iraqi government has not stepped forward to lead the Iraqi people and to reach the genuine political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

This is why the abovementioned rightwing blowhards are not arguing the point, they're simply repeating it over and over to create a false conventional wisdom.

A side-by-side comparison can be found here. There is no major change in position, let along a "purge."

Another option which is not as simple and is generally not as effective is to get them from not wanting to kill you at all. Once war is engage the way to do this is to kill and harm them enough for them to give up. Being dead is the ultimate give-up. History has shown one sided appeasement during war is very ineffective.

Now all that talk was in a strategic sense. Tactically if you have an enemy that is killing you especially with ambushes, you attack their bases of operation and kill them. You don’t tell them the British are just over the hill and they have better food.

Yes there are political sensitive touchy touchy policies still in place. They hamper progress. War is meant to be awful, bloody and mean spirited. Otherwise there is not much of a reason not to conduct them. The problem is we try to fight wars through the MSM eyes and politicians. Now there is a time to transcend into a violence control force then rebuilding force. In the end there is a combination of them all. Our problem has been trying to put the wrong pig in the wrong hole. Of course it is much easier said than done.

You’re kidding right?

No, why, should I be?

You’re kidding right?

This is a direct question for Michael. You think the Iraq war was a mistake I take it. What was it about Saddam you and B Hussein Obama like so much?

Yes, because not thinking it wise to commit 130,000+ troops, spending trillions for a 6 year+ war demonstrates how much we liberals absolutely loved Saddam. For know on, I think that we should make it a permanent policy that our only way to demonstrate our dislike for a foreign leader is to go to war with them. Otherwise we're just babying them. I'm hoping that you'll join me in advocating for war with Mugabe, Jung Ill, Al-Assad, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Gaddafi, Putin and his successor, and the litany of other leaders that I believe that we both dislike. I'm sure that our grandchildren can have this mission completed by 2080

It wasn’t just an issue with the numbers but of policies. We were allowing arm militia to control areas within Iraq.

And we still do. Now we just pay them not to attack us.

The best way to keep the enemy from killing you is to kill them first.

No, the best way to keep the enemy from killing you is to make them want to kill somebody else more.

This is a direct question for Michael. You think the Iraq war was a mistake I take it. What was it about Saddam you and B Hussein Obama like so much? Your former hero, William Jefferson Clinton signed a bill that called for the removal of Saddam from office in 1998. What had Saddam done between 1998 and 2003 that endeared him to you?

That wasn't so much a question as it was an insinuation followed by a question mark.

It wasn’t just an issue with the numbers but of policies. We were allowing arm militia to control areas within Iraq. Mostly out of the philosophy of not offending people or fear that areas would go up like a powder keg. The best way to keep the enemy from killing you is to kill them first. The additional forces gave the commanders more flexibility to go into these contested areas. It also gave them an ability to maintain a local presence instead of going through an area then leaving. Once the areas have been cleared and stabilize then the U.S. could reduce the combat forces and turn areas over to the Iraqi authorities. Could it have been done with less of a surge? Probably, but there would have been a much greater risk of the situation getting out of hand if things went sour. Also it is usually wise to hit the enemy on multiple fronts so they can’t move their assets around to counter your efforts.

Finally, all of this genuflecting needs to be updated, methinks, in light of the collapse of the SOFA talks.

I concede that having more boots on the ground probably didn't hurt, but this meme that the "Surge fixed everything" feels too much like hand-waiving to me.

Anyone care to elaborate on how the additional forces directly contributed to lowering the casuality rates to 2005 levels?