Surging ahead, via the NYTimes?

The NY Times reports that Iraqi President Maliki told President Bush that the initial push in Baghdad has been a success. Granted, Maliki may not be the most truthful player in the area, but it's hard to see if under-playing the truth would help him in his country. In fact, he was against the surge and a failure would help him hasten the exit of American troops. How, I am not so sure. Does he want chaos?

The Times reports:

The two spoke via video link and, according the statement, Mr. Maliki said, “The security plan has been a dazzling success during its first days.”

Across Baghdad, there were signs of the heightened troop presence, as cars were searched at new checkpoints and raids resulted in the arrest of at least 35 people, according to Iraqi officials.

I had my doubts about the surge because 21,500 additional troops didn't sound like very much in a region that may need an extra 100,000 troops. Where they would come from, I have no clue.

The Democrats in the House of Representatives have voted against the surge with 17 Republicans voting with them against the surge. Yet, many of the anti-surgers inside and outside of Congress want the US to restore order in wartorn Darfur. Perhaps the poor people there are more deserving of US intervention because they don't suffer while sitting atop a ton of oil. More purity there.

Of course, stopping the strife is important in Darfur, but restoring some semblance of order in Iraq is a greater priority for the region, The US and the rest of the World. Perhaps France and germany can send troops to wartorn Darfur. Oh, right...