Is the surge really working?

This question has popped up in the media as of late, especially among conservative republican commentators who support this war. There has been talk of the surge making progress in such places as Anbar province. However lets get the facts straight-----there is indeed some improvement in some areas because of an increase in troops. In several reports I have heard from men who fought in Iraq, say that they(the troops) can spend 30 days stabilizing a town, but in 30 minutes after they pull out, its back to the the old chaos. It makes sense and I'm not denying that increasing troops in certain areas can lead to a reduce in violence. Its like putting a policemen on watch in a dangerous criminal neighborhood here in the U.S. There might be a reduce in crime while they're patrolling the area, but once they leave, the criminals come out again. This is the same thing that is happening in certain areas of Iraq. There is no long term solution in these areas and its ridiculous for us to put our brave men and women's lives at risk for progress to only last a half an hour once we leave.

Then there is a situation where we have local leaders turning against al-Qaeda. This is a great thing, I don't want al-Qaeda to become prevalent in Iraq, but the thing that so many seem to be missing, is that al-Qaeda is not be rejected by local, tribal leaders because of the surge, but rather because these tribal leaders do not share the same interests as al-Qaeda. This does not arise from an increase in the number of U.S. troops, but rather a realization that terrorists are not just bad for the U.S., but bad for them too.

And the final problem with the so called progress of the surge, is that while some areas show improvement, other areas are getting worse. I'll use another analogy: its like your kid getting a D in math, so you hire him a tutor. The next semester, his math grade is a B, but then you notice his English grade, which used to be an A, is now a C. You can't call that progress and you can't call the surge's results progress. We make 2 steps forward in one area, while at the same time making 2 steps back in another.

I would like to close by simply stating that there is NO military solution to the conflict in Iraq. There has to be a diplomatic, political solution. The Iraqi government, which is supposed to be a form of democracy, has to be the most un-cohesive government this world has ever seen. Maybe people should begin to understand something---we shouldn't invade countries for the hell of it, and the president shouldn't lie to the American people or Congress about the needs to go to war. Simply put it: A Democracy forced upon someone is not a Democracy. The people of Iraq need to want a democracy, and they clearly don't. Why should American troops have to suffer any longer while fighting in the middle of another country's civil war?