Michael Yon sees hope in Iraq:

One key aspect of General Petraeus’ new operations in Iraq is to put out a large number of “Combat Outposts,” or COPs. The idea of the COPs is not new, but it is proven, and is similar to local law enforcement in the United States opening precinct stations in high crime districts. Though the idea of precinct stations is steady-state (the cops plan to keep precincts open), here in Iraq, part of the idea is to first bring stability – by dampening the vibrant civil war for instance – but ultimately turning Iraq back over to the Iraqis.

If I might insert a personal opinion, I think Petraeus’ plan has a serious chance of working despite heavy odds. In fact, within my first three days with 1-4, talking with Iraqi families and police, there were strong indicators that for this little neighborhood, local people and Iraqi police are definitely encouraged. This doesn’t extend to the terrorists, however, and 1-4 Cav has been under fire. Our soldiers showed amazing fire discipline, not even knowing I was just feet behind them with a video camera. (I’ve seen it many times, but finally have got video proof that our guys will go far not to shoot the wrong people.)

Well let's hope it does work, and fast, before Congress guts the funds and the mission.

Might work even better with an extra 300,000 troops.

Wouldn't it be remarkable if the pussified left turned out to be right after all? That all Iraq needed to succeed was more intelligent generalship? They're very fond of saying oh the war itself wasn't wrong -- I supported the idea of the war in the beginning -- but it was done all wrong, and the Bushies have thoroughly messed it up now...

And it's always seemed crystal clear that this is transparently cynical, that in both cases, then and now, their attitude is totally poll-driven, whatever is politically expedient. They supported the war when the country was filled with Must Do Something rage, and they condemn it now that it has proven, as wars do, to be filled with nasty surprises, and increasingly "unpopular", as the newsies say (although I'd like to know what war has ever been popular -- it's an odd word to apply to organized killing).

But, as I say, it would be amazing if their cynical criticism turned out to be accidentally right, and all that was necessary was for a bright guy like Petraeus to take charge. You know, it would be like telling outrageous lies, knowing them to be lies -- and then having one of your biggest turn out to be true. A little weird.

That all Iraq needed to succeed was more intelligent generalship?

The intelligent generals are the ones who thought that invading Iraq was a terrible idea all along. Petraeus may well be one of them, but he's not in a position to say so.

Talent won't send a square peg through a round hole. The surge is more of a trickle than a surge. Like all other homeopathic cures, its merits are: (a) the placebo effect and (b) it won't poison you.

Petraeus could be useful on that second point. He won't conjure victory out of nowhere, but he could find ways to slow down the damage.

"They supported the war when the country was filled with Must Do Something rage..."

The only time in recent history when this was true was post 9-11. A great majority of Americans supported the war then, and still do today. The war in Afghanistan, that is. Only the misled and ignorant (the latter facilitated the former) were filled with Must Do Something Rage when it came to Iraq.

The intelligent generals are the ones who thought that invading Iraq was a terrible idea all along.

Thanks for your opinion, General Anonymous. My dog disagrees with you, however, and his qualifications to critique are no worse than yours.

Petraeus may well be one of them, but he's not in a position to say so.

Yeah, right. You do realize, I hope, that Petraeus' extra star and being put in charge of Iraq was a major promotion, right? One for which he had to eagerly apply, testify in front of Congress as to his plans, et cetera? You figure he applied for the promotion and the appointment, knowing it would all come apart in his hands and he'd be permanently disgraced in his profession just to...uh, what, exactly? Boost his retirement pay?

Or do you figure he was waterboarded at a secret CIA prison and that's why he took the job? Yes! All right! I give in! I'll take command of Iraq! I'll take the President's future into my hands! Anything to stop the torture! Now will you stop forcing me to listen to Britney Spears?

My dog disagrees with you, however, and his qualifications to critique are no worse than yours.

Even if no one agreed with Anthony Zinni, he would still be right.

Even if no one agreed with Anthony Zinni, he would still be right.

Golly, you're presuming to teach me that it's possible for all but one person (or even everyone without exception) to be wrong about something? Why don't you point out that 2 + 2 = 4 while you're at it? I learned stuff that obvious while you were still sucking your mother's tit, you genetic travesty.

My point would be more along the lines of this: your bare assertion -- lacking as it does a shred of a supporting fact, an argument, or even the weight of relevant authority -- that intelligence among general officers is reliably correlated with the opinion that the Iraq war was a terrible idea is as logically compelling as would be my assertion (had I made one) that my dog gets messages from God and barked out to me one night the contrary proposition.

Read that slowly, with a dictionary in hand, and you'll probably get it this time.

Carl says: my dog gets messages from God and barked out to me one night

That happenes to you too? I thought I was the only one. Watch out for the squirrels though.

Why? Whom do the squirrels represent? I bought stock based on a squirrel's recommendation last week. It's been doing very well, but now you've got me worried.

They represent anything related to nuts. Other than that, I just don't trust squirrels. :P

That's nuts, Mac.