Just days ago one Sunni faction of the Iraq gubmint was charging the AlMalaki-led Iran-friendly Shia majority gubmnint with ethnic cleansing, after that faction quit the govmnt. Positions like this dont bode well for political progress. I think info like this would be important for readers here when the discussion of political progress is bantied about.

And the fact that reporters have to 'hang out in the greenzone hotels all the time' is indicative of dis-progress.

“If we can’t have political reform that can precede more rapidly than has been the case already,” said Col. Toby Green, the operation officer for the U.S. command in Baghdad, “then there is always the possibility that we won’t realize what can be.”

And "if…then" statement is not a "bleak outlook". It's an honest assessment of a possible future. There are many possible futures, only one of which is that which Col. Green described. I am quite sure that he acknowledges that other futures are just as possible, just as any rational person would.

As Yon noted, there is political progress being made in Iraq. It's not happening in Baghdad, though, so it's not getting the attention of the reporters who hang out in their Green Zone hotels all the time. Yon has seen it happening in cities and villages in his travels. So has Michael Totten. So has Ullrich Fichtner.

The thing is, as I've mentioned before, demcoracy isn't a top-down process. It never really has been. Where the Bush administration has failed is in believing that it could be so in Iraq. General Petraeus has seen what happens when the Iraqis get enough peace to be able to work out their own governance, though, and that is exactly why he's going to recommend our continued vigorous pursuit of al-Qaeda and the Iranian interlopers. The more of them we kill and chase away, the more the Iraqis sort out their politics.

It will be some time before a full national government comes about, I'd say, and that's not a surprise. it took us six years to do it and we didn't spend a few decades being traumatized by a genocidal killer.

But keep cheerleading oh Uber-patriot tool you.

200 people killed by bombs in one day… are you insane?

Let me sharpen up your analogy a bit. Imagine if, after the Treaty of Paris, our nascent democracy was immediately assaulted by small groups of soldiers operating out of Canada, trained and equipped by the British? Then imagine our young country's churches, markets, and schools being attacked regularly by a group of American Indians funded not only by the British but by several other sympathetic governments. Do you think that any friendly foreign troops who were in the United States might well have been welcome to help us. I certainly do (and, if I'm not mistaken, they were for a short while).

You said, "After all, six years passed between our own Treaty of Paris and a ratified Constitution."

Luckily, the occupying force (the British) left the US after the Treaty of Paris and the Framers were then free to debate the rights we now enjoy today.

Imagine if the Redcoats had stayed after signing the Treaty of Paris, do you think things would have turned out the same?

"Fewer and fewer things are going boom in Iraq these days, a lot fewer"

You might want to turn on your TV and see the news comming out from Iraq today.

At least 175 dead and hundreds of wounded in 4 attacks in Northern Iraq. The part of Iraq that was supposed to be peaceful.

You know Jimmie, at this late stage of our ocupation (almost five years) it should be crystal clear to even the most fanatical Bush supporter that playing "guacamole" with the insurgents and militias, does not work.

Do you have any idea how you sound just about now with your claims? Sorry, bad timing for your blog.

Jimmie a friendly piece of advice. You might want to try to ask your representatives to change policies in Iraq while they still can. Is not the end of the world you know. But it will be the end of your party if you guys insist in continuing supporting Bush's policies of "stay the course" by another name now called "the surge".