<p>Cuse,</p>
<p>You’re pulling a pugfug and bombarding me with articles without reading beyond the headline. </p>
<p>Your first source states: </p>
<p>***"And as violence has declined, [McCain] has repeatedly credited the surge, overlooking what critics say are other factors in stemming the killing. ***</p>
<p>And your second source says:</p>
<p>“The report cited the emergence of the Sons of Iraq as a major reason for the downturn in civilian-oriented violence and deaths. The groups are made up of an estimated 90,000 Iraqis, often former insurgents, paid by U.S. commanders to help protect neighborhoods and provide intelligence on extremists.”</p>
<p>“Iraqi forces are showing clear signs of independent operational capability with little to no U.S. help, U.S. military officials said.”</p>
<p>So essentially, Iraqi forces have taken it upon themselves to take control of their own country, and that has occurred concurrently with the surge. However, neither article shows any causality between the surge and the reduction in violence, and conservatives merely make the “natural” assumption that 30 000 U.S. troops in the Baghdad area can magically start the Awakening that happened in the Anbar province months BEFORE the surge began. I know the U.S. military is strong, but I doubt they can control minds and travel backwards in time.</p>
<p>That the surge has played some part in decreasing violence, nobody (including Obama) disputes. However, the notion that the only solution to the problem was the surge, and that the problem has been solved or is nearly solved, is completely wrong.</p>