According to a front page article in the Washington Post yesterday, the recent improvements in Iraq are due in large part to the Iranian leadership putting out the word that the roadside bombers should scale back their operations. There is a lot of uncertainty in the US government as to why Iran is doing this, but the consensus appears to be that Iran is a big part of the decrease in violence in Iraq. Maybe the surge is simply coincidence.

So if Iran changes its mind, will the violence escalate again?

If this is true, it reminds me a little of Reagan taking credit for the Berlin wall coming down, when it was all Gorbachev's doing.

I had a long post and I timed out and lost it - left with this.
The sooner things improve over there, the better.

The narrative a few months ago was that Iran was only responsible for like a third of incoming fighters. But that was when it was important to give reasons not to attack Iran.

Whose narrative?

There's been a US surge in troops.
Iran has also ordered a reduction in roadside bombs in order to seem nicer to the Iraqis or something.

There's been a reduction in roadside bombings.

Which one caused the reduction? Did they both? It's important to know. This is the first time I've heard any mention of Iran leadership being behind the improvements in Iraq. I think it's remarkable.

If the Iraqis are mad as hell, and are not going to take it any more, and as a result, the Iranians are changing their tactics, I think that's very interesting and hopeful. But mostly I want to know how much our soldiers' efforts are paying off. That's all I ever wanted to know.

If there is little payoff, then the course of action should be different than if there is a big payoff.

Before this story, I though the lion's share of the credit for the improvements in Iraq belonged to the new US strategy. Now I hear other reasons being cited by officials in the Department of State. Remarkable. Remarkable that there are other reasons for the reductions, and remarkable that the news is coming from the Bush administration.

That jibs with what Mike Yon has been saying about the Iraqis having had their fill of foreign fighters (generically called Al Q) treatment of the people in the areas they controlled. They want us out too, but first they want to wrest control for themselves, from these Islamic hardliners.

But the Shi'a will not share, and the Kurds don't care either way. A civil war can still develop.

.... and most probably will. Even if all outside forces were removed, the Iraqui's are so fragmented and the "power" so divided that its almost a guarantee they would be fighting each other again. How different will the outcome be and who can do what to promote a more peaceful resolution is what I would like to know. Not sure there really is an answer to that though.

I see this as a big step by Iran to influence Iran-US relations:

Iran does not want to be attacked by the United States so it is taking away one of the pro-war arguments.

The media does not want the United States to attack Iran so they are mentioning this when other involvements by Iran have been ignored in the past.


How this affects Iran directly, I don't know, but I do know this greatly hurts the pro-war on Iran argument so hats off to both Iran and the media for actually reporting it.

So, whats going on in Iraq?
I haven't seen a daily beating of the American military lately so I can only assume it is something good. The democratic candidates have stopped telling us about this "lost war" too. C'mon people, I'm relying on you for some info here.

That's because polls show the economy is the most important issue to voters, followed by healthcare, with Iraq a distant third. If people cared (statistically speaking,) you can be sure the candidates would be talking about it.

And immigration.

Really?, suddenly as things improved and the surge effort took hold "we" stopped caring as much? I am certainly not included in that "we"
I call BS. More likely, the liberal media couldn't report about the "unwinnable war" when our troops were in the process of winning.

Some candidates are talking about it. They just don't get the same airtime as others.

It's still an unwinnable war for us, but more people are resigned to the fact that we're stuck there, until the Iraqis sort it out.
The realization has sunk in that we can't just walk away and let things devolve like we did in Afghanistan, where it's got to be done all over again.

The military is at war, America is at the mall.

I'm not sure about any of it, but still - I find it interesting that as soon as things started to look better the coverage stopped almost instantly.

I guess there are several reasons for the drop in coverage.

Firstly, the election campaign is taking up a lot more attention. Media have limited space and time.

Secondly, things going well isn't really "news". Imagine:
"And now to our CNN live cross to Andy in Bagdad..."
"Thanks John, well, I'm standing on a corner in Sadr city with Private Smith who has been manning a checkpoint since oh eight hundred, and he tells me that it's been a quiet day except that some kid threw some stones at him at oh nine thirty five. They missed, thankfully, and the insurgent fled on a bicycle. Since then Smith has been bored and thirsty..."

Combine these two factors and that accounts for a lot of the decrease. I have briefly ventured into the media, and learned that anything with pictures of fires or explosions (or hot women) goes straight to the front page, written disasters get big coverage, while good news and thoughtful analysis gets pretty much buried in the middle. It's based on what people read and what causes people to buy newspapers and watch TV shows.

You may be right, that there is a bias in some parts of the media to reporting the bad news from Iraq but not the good news. Some other parts of the media seem biased the other way.