Interesting bit on Al-Sadr. Strong feelings that he called a cease-fire to save his hide – he was getting beaten too badly in field. Now his followers have re-joined the national political process.

The final paragraph, well, I just don’t have anything to say about that. The fact that you on the extreme left think this is about oil profits, and only oilprofits, is truly sad. Think what you wish.

Precisely why this undermines the soldiers in the field. They know this is not about US imperialism. Rather, the iraq war has morphed into one of presenting stability into the region. There are too many instances and examples of why we must stay engaged in the middle east, why it is in our best interests. Allowing Iraq to develop into a non-aggressive player in regional politics, keeping the free flow of oil to the entire world, is tantamount right now.

Do not delude yourself to think that you are so much smarter than those who have chosen to take up arms and fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. That infers they are simpletons blindly following an imperialist leader.

Liberal elite, indeed.

First, I’m having trouble reconciling the BBC report with bombings in Baghdad just this weekend.

Second, if there is a downturn in violence, Muir attributes it not to the surge but to Muqtada al-Sadr’s freeze on militia activity – which came after much importuning by ali-Sistani and elements of the Iraqi govt. Until Sadr called a halt to fighting, the surge had made zero noticeable difference. Are you sure you’re not assigning credit to a minor military uptick that actually belongs to aggressive domestic diplomacy?

Third, accusing me or any prog/lib I know of “undermining the troops” is both absurd and offensive. I never said – and no one here has ever said – the troops were doing a bad job. Quite the reverse. What we’re saying is that they do as well as they can and better than anyone has a right to expect in a situation made impossible by a US leadership that ignores reality and considers Iraq a US satrap. They’re caught in the middle of a civil war because a) the Admin is full of oilmen with their eyes only on the prize – the rich Iraqi oil fields – and b) full of neocon hawks who want to use a “footprint in the Middle East” to establish an American Empire. I don’t think either is a reasonable goal or a goal that justifies putting our men and women at risk. I didn’t “undermine” what they’re fighting for. The Admin did that when it chose to send them off to die for oil imperialism. The core mission is bogus. Has been from Day One. To me, “supporting the troops” means ending this insanity and bringing them home before they get killed for the Great Purpose of improving Halliburton’s and Chevron’s profits and making the world safe for corporate plunder. That’s all this is about.

“Major-General Joseph Fil, commander of U.S. forces in Baghdad, said al Qaeda in Iraq no longer had a foothold in any part of the city of 7 million people. The group is blamed for most big car bombings that have killed thousands.”

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSYAT74042620071109

US and Iraqi officials say violence across the war-ravaged country has been falling in the past few months since the full deployment of the extra 28,500 troops in a “surge” ordered by President George W. Bush in February.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gPG3IoAJBTdCxj8jM3lKLCKBxoOA

You libs claim you support the troops, yet you undermine everything they are fighting for.

When good things happen, and they are, trumpet it. Show the troops you do care for them.

People walk in crowded streets in the evening, when just a few months ago they would have been huddled behind locked doors in their homes.

Everybody agrees that things are much better.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7089168.stm

The surge is working, troop drawdown plans are in place, and FISA is settled. The only difference you may see in ’09 with a Dem prez is domestic issues.