The big attacks last week that Reid referenced were all AlQaida.

Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda represents aobut 5% of the total insurgents. The vast majority are Sunni and Shia fighters unrelated to the terrorist al-Qaeda cells.

That was true last year, and even to some extent true as recently as six months ago but not any longer. Several of the former Iraqi “insurgent” groups and tribes are now allied with us so the percentage of the insurgency that is represented by al Qaida has grown from say 5% to probably something closer to 50%. While the number if insurgents is down, the proportion of them that is al Qaida is larger than before. This is because non al Qaida groups are now casting their lot with the Iraqi government. Your information is obsolete and no longer reflects the situation on the ground.

Also your yammering about numbers isn’t taking into account some significant details. You don’t seem to be counting the 10 divisions (soon to be 12 divisions) of Iraqi troops in your equation. Nor do you seem to be counting the tribal paramilitary forces that have been so effective the past 8 weeks or so in Anbar.

Sunnis are now joining the Iraqi military and police in droves, this was not the case only six months ago. al Qaida is being pushed out of Anbar into Babil and Diyala provinces. They appear to be preparing for a final stand in Diyala with recent estimates of around 2,000 of the most hardcore al Qaida preparing a “Hezbollah” style defense to include anti-tank teams and conventional infantry in addition to the more unconventional IED and suicide teams. The difference now is that they are losing the cover of the local population who is increasingly turning against them. They are no longer operating on friendly ground and the environment around them is turning poisonous to them.

You conclusions are valid only when reached through obsolete and incomplete information. The facts appear to be overtaking your predictions at an increasing pace. Diyala will be the end of al Qaida in Iraq for all practical purposes. They will have noplace left to go. They have been pushed from Anbar, they have burned their bridges with the Shiites in the South, the Kurds are keeping them out of the far North and our troops are going to shortly begin clearing the pocket known as “The Triangle of Death” that overlaps the border region of Anbar/Baghdad/Babil provinces.

They are preparing for their final stand and it will be violent. But I also believe it will be shorter in duration than the Anbar campaign was which took two years.

Sooth, IIRC, you’ve made this assertion on more than one occasion. Do you have access to intelligence reports that the rest of us don’t. I do still have some contacts within the active spook community, and, while your number (5%) may not be too far off, the amount of violence for which that 5% is responsible far exceeds their raw numbers. They are the ones who are keeping the sectarian pot stirred.

BAGHDAD, April 26 (KUNA) — In the last 24 hours, Iraqi security forces killed one “terrorist” and arrested 217 suspects, said “law enforcement” operations command in Baghdad in a statement Thursday.

The “terrorist” was killed in Al-Mahmoudia area, while 108 “terrorists” and 109 suspects were arrested throughout scattered areas of the capital Baghdad, the statement said.

It added that forces also managed to dismantle three bobby-trapped cars in Sadr city, Markaz Al-Resafa and New Baghdad, in addition to defusing 85 explosive devices.

You cannot look at a manual and pretend Anbar is now won….

LOL! You know what? I see you understand I am right about the disaster your liberal movement will face if successes start happening in Iraq.

If we were too late on the Surge Dems may survive. But if Anbar is truly cleared of insurgents then the Dems are too late – and they will not survive.

Your panic proves you see the same thing… And you are not very confident in the Dems being right.

I don’t blame you. They could be on the brink of an epoch political disaster which will make their screw ups on Vietnam pale in comparison.

And before trumpeting Petraeus’ surge, READ his counterinsurgency manual. Petraeus newly-minted counterinsurgency approach calls for a ratio of 25 soldiers per 1,000 residents — which would require 120,000 soldiers to provide the proper security for Baghdad, and roughly three times that amount for all of Iraq [sound familiar - it's the numbers Gen Shinseki was calling for before Rumsfeld's doomed on the cheap troops provisions].

But let’s just focus on the 120,000 soldiers that, according to the manual written by Petraeus — “the expert on counterinsurgency,” — are needed to secure Baghdad. Simply put: we’re not even close to that number. And never will be. Even after all of the planned 21,500 additional troops are sent to the embattled capitol, there will still only be 85,000 security forces there — and that includes significant numbers of Iraqi security forces, whose readiness and loyalty have repeatedly proven to be unreliable at best.

Meanwhile – unless George has a draft up his sleeve – where are the other 200,000 troops we need according to the manual written by Petraeus?

Petraeus says it will take 120,000 soldiers to succeed. Instead, he’s being asked to do it on the cheap — and pretend that he’s getting what he needs. And this is just in terms of troops. Petraeus’ manual also says that a muscular military presence is just 20 percent of what is needed for a counterinsurgency effort to succeed — the other 80 consists of establishing political and economic reform, two areas in which the United States is also failing miserably.

When Hillary says “If I knew than what I know now” she is really saying:

“Had I known that our base was so radical …”