GySgt

This is not exactly accurate, but somewhat correct. Baghdad is a very emotional place and there is a strong Sunni support for the insurgency and a strong Shia support for militia. The added troop strength has allowed our forces to be in more places than before. This also means that they can be more pro-active with intel. However, this also means more confrontation. Baghdad was supposed to have shown some improvement by now, but as it stands, Baghdad appears to be having an identity crisis. The most peaceful cities and towns are those that do not have such a diverse population in them (they mimic the region's seperations).

This is true in the short run, but not so absolute in the long run. The surge was too small to accomplish what was intended in Baghdad quickly, which was the voiced opinions of our military leaders. However, you work with what your country gives you to the best of your ability. Despite not getting the reaction the White House hoped for in Baghdad, it has accomplished some good in the outer areas where we did not expect it so soon. "IED alley" is no where near what it used to be, because a lot of the IED factories have been destroyed and those that would set up new ones are continually looking over their shoulder thanks to local intel. And the "Wild West" (nickname for the Al-Anbar Province between Baghdad and the Syrian Border) is no longer so lawless. This surge, as small as it is, was enough to target Al-Queda elements within this region and control areas while repairs were under way from previous encounters. Some insurgent elements, while remaining opposed to our presence, have even enlisted our aid to repel Al-Queda elements out of their areas. In return, they are starting to aid us in protecting their regions from the actual enemy. Local elections are taking place as well and this is promise for the next Iraqi election as opposed to another boycott (The Sunni appeared to have learned).

No matter what the issue in life is, the impact of one thing can start a domino effect elsewhere.

This would not be a disaster. It would simply be another way to deal with this. The difference between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq and...Saudi Arabia and Iran? A border. A partitioning of Iraq has always been a very real option and despite the White House's determination to stray from such public revelations, I suspect they are aware of it. Since Iraq was a frankenstein's monster of a country to begin with, we should be preparing ourselves and this region for a possible seperation plan to place things as they were (as best we can) before the crayons slashed the lines. This doesn't have to mean three seperate countries, but three distinct seperations with a unity through collaberation. If they conclude to not stay together they conclude, this at least would be in their best interest.

If the Sunni have indeed learned that boycotting the elections were not in their best interest, this idea that Iraq is a "puppet" and not a freely "elected" government will be of no use to their arguments.

This is entirely misleading (as was probably your intention). It is a fact that most Iraqis want us out of Iraq, but it is also a fact that most of these individuals know that they do not want us abondoning them to chaos and open to Al-Queda.

The correct assessment of these reports is that they don't want us there one second longer than we have to. The only ones that want us gone today are those Sunni who are being prevented in driving Iraq into governmental chaos or Al-Queda who is wasting bodies as they throw them into the meat grinder. It is also of note to state that those Shia who are a part of the militias want us out of their way so they can avenge as they wish. But, unless you are willing to state that the vast majority of Iraqis are militant insurgents, militiamen, or Al-Queda sympathizers, even you have to embrace honesty and acknowledge that most Iraqis don't just simply want us gone.

__________________

GySgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC