I was a Congressional intern last summer (sorry, SWAdmin, but probably the source of those Capitol Hill site hits you were getting . . .I was a bad boy at the office), and Schumer's rep (besides being the worst camera hog in Washington - he has staff assigned to scour the media for references to him) is, as watcher said, a very smooth political operator. He's going to hammer the surge as long as it continues - you can contrast his reaction with other Democrats like Durbin or Levin who are vacillating and acknowledging some progress. Schumer is guns-blazing on Iraq and he has a vested interest in this point at downplaying any success, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

That said, we would be remiss if we didn't examine the Senator's charge and address it. The al-Anbar miracle is far and away the Surge's biggest success, at least as touted by the administration and many of Petraeus' remarks. Yet I think it's valid to ask if the transformation that took place there was the result of what the US did, or what al-Qaeda did to turn the local tribes against them.

I know we engaged with the sheiks and all that stuff, but it's true that during much of 2003-2006, we could provide little or no security to the locals in al-Anbar. Now, with the tribes' help, we are doing well there. I think it's fair to ask if we really deserve as much credit as we give ourselves for that turnaround.

My .02.

Matt