stay eager

the following are not my words -

It's amazing that so many people accept the rather dubious notion that the lull in violence in Iraq over the past few months is a result of Bush's troop "surge." The reasons for skepticism are not ideological, as supporters of the occupation charge, but numerical and chronological.
The surge began in February, and there was something approaching a consensus at the time that the addition of about 10-15,000 combat troops -- the rest were support personnel -- would be a drop in the bucket in a country of 25 million people. Retired four-star General Barry McCaffrey said at the time: "I personally think the surge of five U.S. Army brigades and a few Marine battalions dribbled out over five months is a fool's errand." The troop build up continued in March, April and May. What followed was a bloodbath -- June and July were the most violent summer months of any year of the occupation. August was one of the bloodiest months, period.
Then, that month, Muqtada al-Sadr ordered his Mehdi Army to stand down. The reported number of Iraqi civilian deaths fell by about 50% the next month and decreased again in October and yet again last month. The militia is estimated to be 100,000+ strong and is arguably the most powerful ground force in Iraq after the U.S. military. While the change can't be wholly ascribed to any single factor, it's clear from the chronology that al-Sadr's order, not Bush's "surge," is likely responsible for the lion's share of the drop in violence.
It's frustrating and difficult to oppose a war when the mass media is so credulous of the administration's spin.

-Joshua Holland Editor, War on Iraq special coverage [Alternet]