Hope

Gen. Petreaus

The following excerpts are from an op-ed piece that appeared today in the NY Times. Written by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, of the left-leaning Brookings Institution (hardly a bastion of neoconservative "ideology"), the piece gives a balanced assessment of the improving situation on the ground in Iraq. The article is worth reading in its entirety, but I've selected a few of the more salient observations.
___

"In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference."

"Things look much better than before. American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq)."

"The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave."

"In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=1&oref=slogin