It seems that Iraq finally is turning into a little island of democracy surrounded by an ocean of Islamo-Fascist sates.
Is a little odd that while Iraq seems becoming better, Pakhistan is getting worse...
I´ve read that the coalition guidelines to the region were : to let Iraq to U.S. and U.K. and Pakhistan to U.N. I think people at U.N. just wanted to keep out from Iraqi chaos and terror and preferred the Talibans (afterall their forces were severe damaged by the 2001-2002 attacks). Hence, the fight against Talibans would seem easier (it was a question of maintain the ground gained) than Iraq (insurrection?).
But, four years later, the situation seems worsened for Pakhistan.
It proved two points: Yes, the U.S guidelines for Iraq were wrong in operational level. Yes, U.S. needed to put MORE men in Iraq (despite all the cry from the left). The much "total failure" of Iraq was turned aside in 2006.
I don´t think Iraq is still an issue for 2008 election. Not for democrats.
Final thought: Althought many Portuguese casualities have been reported in Pakhistan, I do not share the feeling that this war is wrong. What is not right is not the war, but the operational direction of it. It was clear in Iraq. United Nations are not skilled to that. Whenever U.N. is involved, you can expect failure.
Brazilians are suffers the same sort of casualities in Haiti (where Brazilians troops are located to try to impose some order in that country), under the U.N. wings. The overall picture is wrong. That´s the point: In Pakhistan or in Haiti - U.N. policies are failed.
BAGHDAD — Violence in Iraq is at its lowest levels since the first year of the American invasion, finally opening a window for reconciliation among rival sects, the second-ranking U.S. general said Sunday as Iraqi forces formally took control of security across half the country.