The War You Have, NYT, Not the War You Want

In the midst of the talk -- especially from the disconsolate NYT -- of the Iraq conflict grinding on inconclusively, etc., we have an ever increasing number of stories observing -- however reluctantly -- that things are improving.

Here's one that says "rocket and mortar attacks in Iraq are reported to have fallen to their lowest levels for nearly two years."

Here's another one that says a Sunni faction has killed 18 al-Qaeda militants in an attack on a compound near the Iraqi city of Samarra. Another 16 al-Qaeda members were said to have been captured in the attack. "The Sunni Islamic Army of Iraq - once part of the insurgency against US-led forces - said its fighters attacked the compound east of the city."

And this almost-optimistic story says that "Everybody agrees that things are much better."

Now, all three of the above stories were reported in the last 48 hours or so by -- are you sitting down? -- the BBC. If the BBC can come to grips with the welcome developments in Iraq, maybe there's hope for the NYT, too.

On the other hand, we have this from the LAT:

"The surge has succeeded militarily; it has so far been an utter failure politically because there has been no progress toward reconciliation."

The LAT editorial charges "Without actually saying so, the Bush administration is now trying to move the goal posts, yet again, by arguing that stopping the violence in and of itself constitutes success. ... U.S. troops in Iraq are trying to suppress a sectarian civil war, not to protect a fragile peace. Neither the American nor the Iraqi publics will tolerate a prolonged U.S. occupation of Iraq. The surge has created an opportunity to leave -- and leave we must."

Don't tell anybody, but Iraqis like me do indeed think that "stopping the violence in and of itself constitutes success." Not total success; we'd certainly like to see political progress as well, and as soon as possible. But protecting and saving innocent Iraqi lives means something, no?