I'm not sure how any reasonable observer could still believe that the presence of 130,000 troops in Iraq is making things better for either Iraq or the U.S. Attacks are at historic highs, casualties (both American and Iraqi) are skyrocketing, and, worst of all, there's no public discussion of changing tactics.
Pundits often like to say that we're at a turning point. Constitutional referendum? Turning point. Elections? Turning point. Massive sectarian violence? Turning point. This is often the result of TV news and regular opinion articles (I'm looking at you, Mr. Six Months) that need to justify their existence and make events sound vitally important all the time, but the reality is simple: the situation is just getting inexorably, relentlessly worse. We're not at some imaginary Important Juncture; rather, we're presiding over a gradual (though increasing, at the moment) decline of security and increase in chaos and mayhem.
And it's voices like this that are suppressed or silenced:
“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”While most of our original goals, save the overthrow of Saddam, are beyond saving, I'm not entirely hopeless about the future of Iraq. But right now, the U.S. is hurting the situation, not helping it, and that is the result of a massive, unforgivable failure of leadership.
On an unrelated note, if you read the entire article, you'll get a sense of the rapidly-growing importance of the DIA in the intelligence community. This is a direct result of Secretary Rumsfeld's consolidation of power, and it bears watching.
