A real book review would place the book in context, analyzing the strengths of the author's arguments vis-a-vis other leading authorities. Your "review" doesn't do that. Perhaps you don't know enough about the subject so you had to stick to your personal reactions to the book at hand.

Even so, I do expect you to at least be familiar with articles published in Salon. Well last fall Gary Kamiya of Salon published a piece entitled "Remember Iraq" in which he made the following arguments that the surge didn't work:

1)"The surge was not primarily responsible for the drop in sectarian violence in Iraq. It played a role, but was far less important than the simple, grim fact that the Shiite militias in Baghdad had already succeeded in ethnically cleansing the city."

2) "Another key factor behind the cessation of violence is that U.S. troops began bribing their former deadly enemies, Sunni insurgents, to cooperate"

3)"The final reason for the cessation of violence was the stand-down by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army, which is lying low. That stand-down, which can be reversed at any time, was brokered by -- Iran."

Kamiya sums up,

Insofar as the surge helped to contribute to lowered levels of violence in Iraq, it is to be commended. And there is no doubt that Gen. Petraeus' adoption of classic counterinsurgency doctrine, which mandates moving troops out of secure bases and closer to the people, was a significant improvement over previous tactics. But as the above should make clear, the surge was not the main reason for the reduction of violence -- which remains at terrifyingly high levels. In any case, the mere reduction of sectarian violence does not prove that the U.S. is "winning." Even the Bush administration has acknowledged that the critical issue in Iraq is political reconciliation. And the sad reality is that there has been no political reconciliation in Iraq, that there are no indications it is on the horizon and that there is no reason to believe that the continued presence of U.S. troops will help bring it about.

So who is right, Joan, Ricks or Kamiya?

Don't you think this should have been addressed in your review?

The real question is should we or should we not continue to occupy Iraq? Keep in mind, mind you, the Iraqis have already decided we have to leave by the end of 2011.

Going on and on about the relative success of "the surge," however defined, is like going on and on about how you got the rear view mirror fixed on the car you totaled.

Petraeus lied about the number of combat ready Iraqi troops that had been trained. And there were real questions about how the military conducted its body count and many other details of his testimony. Perhaps Ricks addressed those charges in his book -- we can't tell from Joan's lousy book review.

Petraeus picked a bad time to lie. By that time people were sick and tired of being lied to about Iraq. The last thing we wanted to hear was more lies in support of an unjust war that was based on the Big Lie technique in the first place. Same thing with McCain walking through that Iraqi marketplace with hundreds of Marines, snipers, a flak jacket, and air support and then having the gall to tell us all that it was just like strolling through a market somewhere in the U.S.

You all have been caught in your lies. You have lost your credibility. You just don't realize it yet. Maybe you should check the election returns.

Where's ol' debatin', not-cryin', Joan Walsh when she starts to take heavy fire? She's Missing In Action.

In addition to the link provided a few posts above this one check out the Justin Raimondo post here:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=14278

C'mon, Joan. Several people have read your contrarian pap and provided strong counter arguments. You spewed a few comments about people not reading your article, called some names, and then vanished.

Defend yourself, Joan, or admit defeat.

I wonder if they will wear brown shirts this time?

Joan said, "I share liberals' worries about the possibility of needless "compromise," especially on Social Security, for the sake of pleasing the GOP, but we haven't seen that -- yet."

While, I accept Joan's larger point that Obama is laying down a marker saying, in effect, "I tried to reason with those wingnuts but they won't listen to reason," Joan is nevertheless wrong that we haven't seen needless compromise from Obama yet.

As Paul Krugman has argued, Obama went into the stimulus negotiations already compromising -- with a low total dollar figure and a high proportion of tax cuts -- which just meant he had to compromise even further once negotiations began. That wasn't just unnecessary, it was stupid. The first thing you learn on the first day of class in Negotiation 101 is you start with a high number and come down.

While we are bringing these secret laws to the light of day, there are a few more which weren't secret, per se, but which received very light coverage and utterly inadequate public debate that need to be radically revised:

1) The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, especially Sec. 1042, "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies, which overturned posse comitatus.

2)National Security Presidential Directive 51 - an incredibly overly broadly drawn plan for continuity of government that would essentially allow the president to institute martial law if there is a bad hurricane.

You go, Glenn. You are a national treasure.

Glenn is absolutely right when he scoffs at some upthread commenter who suggests less outrage: "Yeah - if there's one thing we've had too much of, it's outrage over what was done. Think how much better things would be if we had less."

If you're NOT outraged you just don't get it.