An article which continues the discussion about the relative success of the surge. Bushies claim additional troops turned the tide against violence. Non Bushies claim the reason for the decline in violence is due to: "newfound cooperation of Sunni groups who used to align themselves with the violent insurgency." Either way, it raises the question: if such a small percentage increase of troops was able to affect such a change, why weren't they committed at the start of the war?

The story focuses on a facet of the question while posing as a discussion of the question. The question is "Did the surge help the US stabilize Iraq and improve reconciliation and rehabilitation of the nation's government and infrastructure?" The story focuses on a view of the political / public safety / military situation and ignores public health, government effectiveness, or infrastructure repairs. It's a form of following the talking points and ignoring the other aspects of the US's responsibilities.

The reporting on reports gives some counter-views to the neo-con praise of the escalation of forces in the occupation. The story and reports posit there may be more violence breaking out into civil war.

This, in my mind, is a classic "he said, she said" article, which does very little reporting of facts on the ground. We basically learn that some people think the surge is "working", and some don't. Which we already knew. What we don't have enough of, and definitely dont get from this article, is new information.