Anbar is safer because there are less troops

For the millionth time, we are not surging in Anbar.  We are surging in Baghdad, with little success.  The Anbar Province is safer today because Sunni tribes made the political decision to oppose foreign al Qaeda fighters.  I alluded to this point yesterday.

Cenk Uygur of Huffington Post takes it one step farther:

When are the people in the media going to grow a brain? Thisso-called surge is a disaster, with zero results. Yes, I said zero.

Now let me say something that is going to sound contradictory totheir small, little viewpoints (let's call it that, to be generous).Our strategy in the Anbar province is working. But wait, I just saidthe surge isn't working. How can that be?

That's because our strategy in the Anbar province has NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING to do with the surge. It doesn't involve more US troops. It involves less US troops!

Can someone please use their minds? Has anyone thought for more thanthree seconds about what our strategy in Anbar is? It is to turn theSunni insurgency from our enemies to our allies - so that they do thefighting for us! We do not have more troops fighting in the Anbarprovince now, we have less.

Also, the Sunni tribes began fighting al Qaeda before the surge even began.

Regardless of the facts, General Petraeus will try to connect the surge to the successes in Anbar.  It is sad how the only proof that the Administration can give that the surge is working is based on flawed reasoning.