This From the Salt Lake Tribune
McCain's surge claim
Public Forum Letter

Am I the only one who finds the spectacle of John McCain in perpetual attack mode unpleasant? Having hobbled himself by admitting he knows nothing about economics, the current major concern of most Americans, he focuses on Iraq, specifically the "surge," a topic 18 months out of date. As he parrots "the surge has worked!" I am struck by how interviewers never follow up with these salient points about the "successful" surge: 1. Violence has dropped in such areas as Anbar province because sectarian cleansing has been achieved and there is no one left to kill. 2. The United States is currently paying the Sunni sheiks not to side with al-Qaida in Iraq. When we stop paying them, what will be the effect? 3. The trained-in-Iraq al-Qaida fighters, courtesy of Bush's convenient gratuitous war, are now leaving Iraq and heading to Afghanistan, where the violence is climbing. As McCain babbles on unchallenged about the "success" of the surge, voters cannot be blamed for accepting a view too simple for our safety. His argument belongs to the past - and so does he.
Michele Margetts Salt Lake City

I hate how the success in Iraq is discounted just because one may not like the war, nor Pres Bush. The questions are, is there less violence in Iraq? Are less military personnel needed in Iraq to maintain security? Did this transformation to less violence occur during the "surge"? If yes, then we should recognize that the strategy was in fact successful despite whether or not Anbar was "cleansed", or Sunni sheiks are being paid. The most important objective is less violence.
I read an article yesterday that said for the first time in years families can be seen at local parks in Iraq. And today Bush announces the end of the surge. (All extra troops will be home this month). It's just a shame that people wont acknowledge something good, just because they are opposed to those that are doing it.