When even the Grauniad can't avoid reporting it, you know things have to be getting pretty good:

Not so long ago Sunni and Shia gunmen were fighting for control of the suburb, near the road to Baghdad's airport. As a result, the once religiously mixed housing projects that lie either side of al-Amil's main street soon separated into Shia or Sunni enclaves.

But Muhammad, a Sunni Arab, and his Shia colleagues in the neighbourhood watch group are determined to reverse the ethnic cleansing. Last month, the group agreed to protect a Sunni mosque in his street from local Shia militias. They have also been mediating between the divided communities either side of the highway.

The result was an understanding: Sunni families would return to their former homes in the heavily Shia areas, while Shia families crossed back into the mainly Sunni streets. The two communities agreed to guarantee the safety of the returnees. Such was the popular backing for the deal that even the local Mahdi army commander had to acquiesce.

"We've been neighbours for 25 years and we feel like brothers," said Muhammad. "We will help them to guard and respect their mosques, and they won't harm me or my family."

Nobody tell Harry Reid. Or if you do, make sure that he doesn't have any sharp objects around, in his despondency.

Iraq vs. Vietnam, Bush vs. Nixon:

Here's a an analysis that's ripe for vigorous disagreement.

Things are going much better in Iraq than they were 18 months or so ago. Time will tell if the improvements continue, but assume for the sake of this argument that Iraq will continue to improve.

I contend that the personal integrity and character of George W. Bush allowed the U.S. to succeed in Iraq while the lack of integrity and character of Richard Nixon was key to the U.S. failing in Vietnam.

The reasoning is simple. For Richard Nixon, the opposition was able to take something he had done (dirty tricks by his minions followed by the cover-up), and use it to tear down his presidency about 2 years into his second term. The opposition for Bush was not able to find anything like that (despite trying), and so Bush continued in power. If Bush had been stopped due to his character flaws during the 6th year of his presidency, instead of conducting the "surge," the U.S. would have pulled out of Iraq, leaving a big mess. This is what happened in Vietnam.

I'll admit that events in the history of both conflicts were very complicated, but that is one important difference--Nixon was distracted an removed from power in his second term due in part to his own character flaws. Bush was not, and had time to improve strategy in Iraq.

Jeff,
I can't disagree with you from a historical stand point. But I'm not onboard on why Nixon "lost' the war.

Part of Nixon's running strategy was to point out the mess the Dems had caused in Nam. He also was pushing for peace and not for a win. The war wasn't winnable from a standard sense militarily by the time he got elected. And he knew it.

Not without committing many more men and much more material, and the American citizenry was not wanting any of that.

The most hopeful thing in the article was not specifically mentioned. That is the development of civic pride. Beyound that, the first development of people seeing themselves as citizens responsible for their own fate. That sense, which is similar to what happened in the "minutemen" of 1770's America, will make for a strong country.

Of course dicators and autocrats hate citizenship. They prefer serfs. If this trend continues we might see a "revolution" where the local folks push out the "hunkered down" politicans.

I realize this is oversimplified but I think this is a truly positive trend.

I agree with all the assessments that the situation is improving, whatever the reason. The real question is when can we finally leave and never come back? Also, when will the supposed Iraqi government come out of the green zone and begin governing?

Why would we leave and never come back? We have continuing interests in the Middle East that aren't going to go away even if Iraq turns into Virgina by tomorrow. Fewer troops, yes. But I expect we'll have troops in country for a long, long time.

I agree with all the assessments that the situation is improving, whatever the reason. The real question is when can we finally leave and never come back?

I don't know. How many decades did it take us to leave Germany and Japan and never come back?

Also, when will the supposed Iraqi government come out of the green zone and begin governing?

I don't know. How long did it take for us to get a Constitution after we defeated the British in 1781?

Are you part of the instant gratification generation?

Are you completely ignorant of history?

Rand, why do you have to be rude. I respectfully disagree with you and several others about the middle-east and the war on the jihadists without being rude. I thought I asked a legitimate policy question that merits some discussion. KeithK attempted to answer it. If you don't think the question has any merit then say so without the personal attack. Your final statements are, essentially, ad-hominem remarks.

I don't believe Germany has required our military presence since 1991, at least. We could have left Japan in the fifties. The fact that we have occupied those nations indefinitely doesn't mean we should have or should continue to do so. Those occupations can't, necessarily, serve as any kind of example outside of the narrow historical framework that precipitated them. Your statements suggest some equivalence between those events and Iraq. I would argue that there is no equivalence. You can certainly argue otherwise.

Really, Jardinero, leave West Germany to the tender mercies of the Warsaw Pact and the Red Army. We know from the National Security Archive that the Soviets entertained cross border operations (read invasion) from Czechoslovakia
at least into the late 60s. That the Cuban missile
project was designed in part to remove Jupiter missiles from Italy and Turkey; and that gambit worked. That the future Red Brigade would find sanctuary and training bases in Czechoslovakia.
That the Red Army Faction although not Soviet directed; derived training and support from East Germany. We also know that if it had been for the likes of the late Mike Mansfield and his odious
Mansfield Amendment; all these outcomes may have come to pass.

Why did we stay in Japan at least into the 70s; with regards to Okinawa; Well North Korea and
China's actions had more than a little to do with it. The comabat restrictions imposed on the Self Defense Forces, also played a part.
Forces had not a li

Rand: "I don't know. How many decades did it take us to leave Germany and Japan and never come back?"

For those with a libertarian bent, way too many. We should be closing all of those bases now.

As for Iraq, we should be committing the troups and engineers necessary to return the country to something remotely resembling stablity. We broke it, we bought it. God knows how long that will take, but we're about 250,000 troups short of making it happen.

"but we're about 250,000 troups short of making it happen.
Posted by Adrasteia at December 21, 2007 02:02 AM"

Didn't that talking point expire in 2006. You might wanna check your cupboards I think there are a few things to toss out.

Jardinero1:
"I don't believe Germany has required our military presence since 1991, at least. We could have left Japan in the fifties. The fact that we have occupied those nations indefinitely doesn't mean we should have or should continue to do so. Those occupations can't, necessarily, serve as any kind of example outside of the narrow historical framework that precipitated them. Your statements suggest some equivalence between those events and Iraq. I would argue that there is no equivalence. You can certainly argue otherwise."

Rand only mentions the WWII examples because they're the most obvious. Take Korea (won), Vietnam (lost), Somalia (lost), and Bosnia (won) as other examples of why your question is slightly nonsensical.

"Leaving" is not the measure of victory. We won't leave Iraq until long after we win, unless we start focusing on "leaving" as winning, in which case we will lose. This is why your question provokes attack - because it betrays a mindset that would see the US lose the war over 4,000 US casualties as long as the troops come home.