redblueamerica.com

Matt Yglesias says we're losing in Iraq:

The theory behind the surge was clear. Some people said more troops would bring more security to Iraq. Critics of that idea noted that sending more troops would be logistically unsustainable. Surge theorists posited that a temporary increase in force levels would create a temporary increase in security that would open window of opportunity for political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. So the surge was implemented. As of September, the surge had failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security. Surge supporters told skeptics we had to give it more time. Three months later, the surge has still failed to generate the political reconciliation that would allow for a permanent increase in security.

Now we're near the point of de-surging -- the window is closing rapidly and nobody thinks the opportunity will be seized. And yet surge fans are declaring victory. It's doesn't make sense. The surge's architects laid out admirably clear goals for it. Laid them out and unambiguously failed to meet them.

This is a position that makes a lot of sense to me. I'll grant the surge -- along with the separate decision by the Sunnis to turn against Al Qaeda -- has reduced violence somewhat. But Yglesias was right: That increase in security was supposed to buy Iraqis some time to get their political house in order. And that hasn't happened.

I know that Ben and other conservatives are arguing that political progress is being made, only from the bottom up. I guess I'm skeptical.