The First is the Last

I wondered how long it would be before an Idaho Conservative blogger would post something about the Surge, trying to insulate themselves against a certain future outcome.

Well, Clayton Cramer didn't make me wait long for the willful ignorance:

BBC (Of All Organizations) Reports That The Surge May Be Working

Yes, I'm shocked as well:

He said everyone wanted the US forces to be able to leave, both Americans and Iraqis alike, but he said it was vital to ensure that "the gains that have been hard fought in places like Baquba and Ramadi could be sustained, maintained and even built on by Iraqi forces and Iraqi political leaders".

The violence has subsided in Ramadi over the past six months - largely, correspondents say, because tribes have turned against al-Qaeda. The Americans have taken parts of Baquba, but it is still unclear how much they control.

Hmm, suspicious? Definately. Let us take ourselves over to the BBC and review the actual article.

Speaking to the BBC's John Simpson in Baquba, Gen Petraeus said there was evidence that the recent troops surge was producing gains on the ground.

Sounds good so far, right? We can all trust Gen. Petraeus, because he's one of the good guys!

But he warned that US forces were engaged in a "tough fight" which will get "harder before it gets easier".

Hmmm, can we say "backtracking"? How can a fight that is going better go worse and then get better again be called successful? How do you know you're ever on the way to it getting better? Where are the metrics?

Metrics? I got yer friggin metrics:

Unfortunately, this investment has yielded no real progress. The President’s policies have failed to bring security to Iraq. The country remains mired in multiple civil wars with Sunnis fighting Shi’a, Sunnis fighting each other in Anbar and Diyala, Shi’a fighting each other in the South, and Kurds fighting Sunnis around Kirkuk and Mosul. Iraqi Security Forces, who are supposed to be taking on greater responsibilities, cannot be trusted to enforce the law fairly, and all too often turn on American troops or take part in sectarian violence. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is teetering on the verge of collapse. One third of the Cabinet, including the major Sunni party as well as the party of Muqtada Al Sadr, is currently boycotting the government. Without the participation of these groups there can be no meaningful progress on any of the key political benchmarks including the oil law, de-Baathification, or amending the constitution.

The President’s “surge” has failed to bring about stability or political reconciliation. The chances of a dramatic shift that might change the situation are extremely unlikely.

Well, that doesn't sound good at all, and the report just gets worse from there.

So is Clayton Cramer channeling Joe Lieberman or is he just a gun-loving asshole? And why do I ask questions like that when I already know the answer?