One last point that didn't really fit in the other posts (I've not been talking about Iraq enough lately). Brooks says that, "Many of the people who are dubbed bad guys actually got this one right." This question of "right" is an interesting one. The "success" of the surge exists in contrast to the failure of the previous policy. It's not proof that alternative policies that were not tried would have returned lesser results. Insofar as the debate was between proponents of the surge and supporters of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations, the question of who got it "right" would require an analysis of what would've happened had we implemented the ISG's strategy. My sense is that a phased withdrawal married to a diplomatic surge was, and remains, the right way to go, but folks can argue the point. Folks, however, are not arguing the point. Rather, a lot of people are saying that the post-surge period is better than the pre-surge period. In a limited sense, that seems true (though some experts are doubtful). But that's neither here nor there on the question of which strategy was "the right" one. Everyone agrees Bush's original strategy was wrong. And the ISG approach was never tried.
