Ezra Klein's points here are all well taken. But even if the "surge" is a failure on its own terms, it does seem to be coincident to a significant change in Iraq, and, as such, I suppose one should expect the "What's next?" to change. Specifically, if Matt Duss is right, and violence in Iraq is down as the logistical result of successful ethnic cleansing campaigns and waning Sunni-on-al Qaida fighting - if, in short, Iraq is becoming Balkanised - wouldn't now, or soon, be the appropriate time to withdraw a significant number of American forces and replace at least some of them with a broad base of friendly ally troops? (ha!)
Alternatively, we could just keep 100-150,000 US troops indefinitely stationed there on permanent bases, with less and less violence to police, but more and more long-term hostilities to inflame. Any bets on which course we'll choose? Anyone?
