Maybe Dougy would like to stumble on over there to read that, since it has a really dumb, and couldn’t be more wrong, quote by his darling, Yglesias.

And, MataHarley, here’s one for you (same source)…

For example, in “The Price of the Surge,” the lead article from the May/June 2008 issue of Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon noted:

In January 2007, President George W. Bush announced a new approach to the war in Iraq. At the time, sectarian and insurgent violence appeared to be spiraling out of control, and Democrats in Washington - newly in control of both houses of Congress - were demanding that the administration start winding down the war. Bush knew he needed to change course, but he refused to, as he put it, “give up the goal of winning.” So rather than acquiesce to calls for withdrawal, he decided to ramp up U.S. efforts. With …..a “surge” in troops, …..a new emphasis on counterinsurgency strategy, ……and new commanders overseeing that strategy, Bush declared, the deteriorating situation could be turned around.

Perhaps it’s not at all clear whether JSM held a negative opinion - as Yglesium likes to not-sot-subtly infer - because Petraeus wasn’t discussing Surge strategy with McCain, but the CIC, Bush. If that’s the case, you’lll have a hard time digging up McCain comments saying the Surge shouldn’t include tactics like the Anbar Awakening and cooperation with sheiks. He’s a savvy military man, and knows to consult ground commanders for their recommendations. Why would you think, as a candidate for the nomination, that he’d try to lay out specifics for Surge tactics without having the benefit of having personal briefings from commanders? Absurd.

McCain went to Iraq in 2007 with 60 minutes in tow where he met with many of the sheiks that were involved with the awakening movement. Doesn’t appear he had any problem whatsoever with that tactic. I think JSM listens to commanders, then looks for results. This had results.

If this is the best you and bud Matt can do to try and discredit JSM’s obvious superior judgment to BHO, you are in serious doo doo, guy. But start the whisperings and rumblings about evidence of nothing on a non-issue anyways. The already JSM haters will lap it up and keep the rumors going for you.

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/radical-foreign-policy-of-matthew.html

Robert Wright and Jim Pinkerton raise an important issue — it’s very clear from the record that John McCain strongly supported the dispatch of additional troops to Iraq, but it’s not at all clear that he supported the suite of counterinsurgency tactics that he now wants us to believe is what the term “the surge” refers to. Indeed, the basic shape of the Anbar Awakening — talk to your enemies, make concessions to bad guys to get them out of the terrorism business, etc. — doesn’t sound at all like the kind of thing McCain supports philosophically.
…

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/

I know certainly there is a legitimate distinction to make between the surge and the Anbar COIN, yet myself, I can’t say where McCain has been on COIN in Anbar. I do know he was upset and skeptical with the ‘”old” Way Forward’ under Rumsfeld.

I’m almost positive this will now be the next background check on McCain’s statements about Anbar. –Stay tuned.

Alas, it will almost certainly get worse before it improves. The next few years (hopefully not even that long) promise to be, uh, shall we say, “interresting.”

There is evidently no end to the stupidity running rampid amongst the news types.

Did you watch the video here where even newscasters are mocking the assertion that the surge had nothing to do with the success the Iraqis are having since it was implemented?
http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2008/07/scarborough_olb.php

The first troops started coming in at the end of Jan… the 31st. Yet at the beginning of Jan, the attacks were up almost as high as the peak of Sept 06. We did not have all the troops in for months, and the militants/jihadists embraced the fight with serious activity, as the graph shows.

Now, to go to your sectarian deaths analysis

You’ll notice in the same period, that sectarian-ethnic deaths (bottom left graph) were on a steady rise since Aug 06. They did not start the decline until the Surge commenced in Jan 07…. with a peak in July 07, just after all our troops and equipment arrived. From there… steady decline.

So I’m confused where you’re coming up with your analysis?

As for McCain’s timeline stumble… already old news. I sure as heck am not going to defend JSM for his gaffes as both candidates stumble often. I believe JSM’s grasp of the Iraq strategy is on more solid ground than BHOs. And I certainly believe that JSM’s mistaken time frame of the Sunni sheiks (which as I pointed out above, started their push back but then requested the US watch their back for safety so they could continue), is easier to make because of their simultaneous happenings, and obvious benefits for the sheiks and their tribes.

On the other hand, BHOs statments that going into Iraq in 2003 “took our eyes off the ball” and enabled the escape of Bin Laden from Tora Bora in 2001-early 2002 is absurd since we weren’t Iraq at that time.

So you point out media outlets like LA Times and Huffpo coming up in Google searches that criticize JSM for his timeline. Uh… so what? Considering it’s something to seize on about JSM that’s negative, at least they’re giving him some coverage, so they say. Otherwise they are a non stop 24/7 campaign advertisement for BHO. I fail to see your point, other than you adeptly point out how biased the media is. But we all know that.

As I said, this is the first election I’ve ever seen where one candidate is an “also ran”….

I typed into youtube search engine:

mccain surge

and got this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaVbHyRdkC4&watch_response

If you go to google’s engine and you type the same, you get this

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mccain++surge&btnG=Search

If you type ‘obama surge’ into google, you get this:

http://www.google.com/search?sa=N&tab=nw&q=obama%20surge

Not a good picture as i see it for mccain. You many say, ‘oh relax, that’s just the internet, which changes like my daughter’s diapers.’

Well, yes and no. It changes, but it also now feeds significantly to the MSM cable news– as it’s faster than newspapers –and reflects what people are saying in real time.

McCain, I venture to say, is losing ground on the accuracy of his ability to understand the facts in Iraq, according to the MSM.

If this continues to build any further, he’s in a great deal of trouble, as he’ll have to do more than just cancel a press conference to sidestep his earlier statements.

No doubt (as it’s interesting news) there be more than one poll out by the middle or end of next week looking at how the public now gauges mccain and obama on foreign policy. …it’ll be very interesting.

It’s hard to argue that Obama opposed The Surge, that the dramatic drop in violence is not a result of The Surge, that Democrats caused The Surge, that Democrats are responsible for the dramatic drop in violence, and that The Surge failed or was not necessary all at the same time. Too many of the points are counter to each other, to history, and to reality.

He opposed it, he was wrong, and he’d be a better man if he acknowledged that now rather than make it an example of duplicty.

Looking at the graph you posted I find:

the sectarian civil war peaked in late fall of ‘06, and it continued to fall to the present day, in Baghdad and all of Iraq in conjunction with this: See page 23 below.

Yet, as you indicated above, attacks went up the same time, as ethnic killings peaked, then went down.

Why is that? That’s very strange; what could be the reason?

Before answering that question we need to investigate why attacks started rising, (after peaking in sept-oct of 06) several months later to similar heights of sept-oct:

It was January’s announcement of the surge that stoked more attacks. These attacks, the bulk being in Baghdad, were the intended efforts to stoke more civil unrest, to restart sectarian bloodshed; these attacks continued to rise for several months until the surge’s strength (along with partitioning Baghdad) solidified in summer; attacks then peaked, then began falling (There are numerous reports to testify to this account), as the insurgents melted away to elsewhere. Yet during this time, Jan, Feb, March and April saw significant drops in sectarian killings (page 23).

…But still, why deaths down, attacks up?

The main reason attacks went up while deaths peaked, then significantly fell, in a pre-surge late fall of ‘06, consists of three important variables combined together to help improve the security situation for the surge Iraq in 2007: 1. the 2006 Sunni Awakening, 2. Sadr’s 2006 decision to stand down, and 3. the relocation of Sunni and Shia in and around Baghdad into defensible enclaves, supported through the walling up of Baghdad.

This is why I speak of deaths, not attacks; it’s a nuance i believe that fits the facts that explain how the surge’s “success” is dependent on prior arrangements. The pre-surge sectarian civil war deaths, were falling in late ‘06– even in Baghdad– and continued falling for months– even as attacks started to rise again in January of 07. The conclusion is obvious, the ethnic cleaning had peaked, and its related killings were waining, as sects had done their “jobs” of killing, relocating and setting up defensive enclaves in walled and fortified societies; an order of sectarian stasis had now been achieved in late 06, and the same time attacks were climbing– spawned by news of the oncoming surge.

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/Master_16_June_08_%20FINAL_SIGNED%20.pdf

Okay. But to me, violence is violence… despite the body bag count. And violence and numbers of attacks are far more relevant to a “security” measure than the death count.

So let me ask this… In your measure of “peak”, are you talking only American deaths, or including deaths of Iraqi citizens too? Not only the Iraqi troops and police, but Iraqis who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?

And you do notice the free fall of attacks that would resulted in the deaths (that you want to count), or the injuries (that you don’t want to count) fell astronomically after the surge, yes?