Actually we're still paying the old army members, albeit at their low Saddam-era salary. Criticism of the decision to disband the army should rest more on the fact that they could have been used for something, rather than the idea that they were cut loose with no money at all. And from the evidence coming out of Fallujah, attempting to use the old Iraqi army with only cosmetic changes at the top might not have futhered our goals as much as people seem to think. There'd also be almost irresistable pressure to go the "friendly dictator" rout.

I’ve for some time contended that the Iraqi situation is increasingly improving. It seems that Dan Drezner is starting to agree. Panglossian optimism? Nope, the evidence seems rather convincing. Our host continues to blame the administration for its mistakes---and that’s fair. But which military campaign has ever been managed flawlessly? I will be somewhat content if anyone can point out even one example in world history.

There are times I wish I was a Las Vegas bookie. How soon will the liberal consensus opinion change to “Bush is just lucky.” The major media are now so desperate that they must print ludicrous stories claiming that American military females are raping Iraqi male prisoners. Yup, the good news out of Iraq is getting harder to ignore.

“And from the evidence coming out of Fallujah, attempting to use the old Iraqi army with only cosmetic changes at the top might not have futhered our goals as much as people seem to think.”

Does any rational person believe that president Bush would be praised if he had ordered the Iraqi army not to be disbanded? Baloney! He is in a no-win situation. Many of these same people would instead argue: “Oh my God, the President is merely protecting the Baathist status quo. He is should be impeached for this outrageous action. Did we send troops to die in Iraq merely to allow things to remain the same?”

Bush would probably receive more praise if fewer positive stories about Iraq began with the preface "This time around..."

The biggest problem I have is that guys like Petraeus were out there on their own. Basically, if he wasnt an incredibly gifted and visionary individual, little would have gotten done. Hoping that their is a person like Petraeus in ever part of iraq is just unrealistic. Thats where leadership comes in. If Bremer was more like this guy, iraq would be a different place. When Bush says he gives his people in iraq everything they ask for, i believe him. In my opinion, he doesnt ask _them_ for enough, he hasnt set the bar high enough and held them to standards, particularly on the civilian end of things. Thats a real problem, a lack of concrete goals out of washington. Bureaucrats at the CPA just arent going to take the bull by the horns and get up to their elbows like petraeus and other individual generals have done, at least without a firm boot to their behinds from Washington now and again.

Ah yes, the technocrat's praise for the technocrat.

No doubt Patraeus is smart, but for God's sake, he was in charge of Mosul. That is, he was in charge of a city where the US really was a liberator -- if liberation means taking sides in ethnic warfare. Heck, Wesley Clark would probably look pretty brilliant if he was in charge of Pristina, no?

Here's a prediction, those nice new weapons and flack jackets with ceremic inserts are going to start appearing on the black market, maybe even as accoutrement on some dead 'terrorist insurgents'. Give it a month.

Actually Mosul has a very large Sunni Arab population, so Petraeus's accomplishments were impressive. I think the problem's in Baghdad have their origins in several region specific issues: the proximity to a region of Iraq that seems to be more prone to extreme Sunni fundamentalism (Fajullah), the proximity to a region with a lot of Saddam's relatives (Tikrit), heavy Ba'athist presence in the political center of the country, and the fact that media attention is centered on Baghdad.