Things are actually getting alot better in Iraq. But of course god forbid the media air any good news.
Even NBC has done positive stories on the progress in the last 2 days. When NBC does a good story on Iraq you bet there are at least a 100 others not being told

“There’s an old expression about war: “Victory has many fathers, while defeat is an orphan.” But in the case of Iraq, it seems the other way around. We’ve blamed many for the ordeal of the last four years, but it is the American victory in Anbar province that now seems without parents.

Over the last few months, the U.S. military forced Sunni insurgents in Anbar to quit fighting. This enemy, in the heart of the so-called Sunni Triangle, had been responsible for most American casualties in the war and was the main cause of unrest in Iraq. Even more unexpectedly, some of the defeated tribes then joined in an alliance of convenience with their American victors to chase al-Qaida from Iraq’s major cities.
As President Bush recently told U.S. troops about Anbar province: “It was once written off as lost. It is now one of the safest places in Iraq.”

But that dramatic turnabout in Iraq is rarely reported on. We know as much about O.J.’s escapades in Vegas as we do about the Anbar awakening or the flight of al-Qaida from Baghdad. When we occasionally do hear about Iraq, it is just as likely through a Hollywood movie — “In the Valley of Elah,” “Redacted,” “Lions for Lambs” — preaching to us how the U.S. was mostly incompetent or amoral in fighting a hopeless war.

The Abu Ghraib prison scandal of 2004 warranted 32 consecutive days on The New York Times’ front page. Congressional appeals for timetables and scheduled withdrawals, amid cries of “fiasco” and “quagmire,” were regularly reported this summer. Now, though, there is largely silence in newspaper headlines about the growing peace in Anbar province.

Why this abrupt amnesia about Iraq, given a radical drop in American casualties and entire cities now largely free from serial violence?

Many anti-war critics are so invested in the notion of the Iraq war as the “worst” something or other in U.S. history that they cannot accept the radical turnaround after over four years of war.

Other opponents have simply changed their argument from “Iraq is lost” to “Even if we do win, it will not have been worth the cost.” Either way, good news from the front seems to translate into no news.

Even some supporters of the war are leery and hesitant to tout American success. Maybe they remember past optimism over successful elections and the euphoria over the purple fingers — all occurring prior to the Shiite/Sunni sectarian bloodletting of 2006.

New uncertainties elsewhere also overshadow Iraq — the falling dollar, martial law in Pakistan, skyrocketing oil prices, and fear of a soon-to-be nuclear Iran. Amid all that chaos, Iraq may no longer be our chief worry. continued… ”

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=when_good_news_is_no_news&ns=VictorDavisHanson&dt=11/15/2007&page=2

Gosh Greg, thankyou. I hope jersey gets it.

But the history of reconstruction and world politics after WW2 is instructive but for a different reason. Germany and Japan were demonized just like Iraq under Hussein and Iran is today. The “Krauts” and the “Japs” were labeled the terrorists of their day. They were responsible for far more American deaths than the recent wave of terror and their example shows that there is no reason why the same kind of success and transformation couldn’t happen today.

R E C O N S T R U C T I ON , Get it ?
We’ve done it before and we’re doing it again, thankyou.

Prior economies are not the issue Sherlock. Why , for the third time, are you stuttering ?

JMJ

Not before WW2 jersey.

JMJ said;
“Can I ask you this: If the total price tag for this stupid war reaches 1.5 trillion, or God forbid 2.5 trillion, will it still be have been worth it to you?”

YUP !