ANALYSIS: Petraeus Returns to War That Is Now His Own, By Peter Baker and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, September 13, 2007; Page A01

I agree with the assessment that the White House wants Iraq to be "Petraeus' War," but to say that the "surge" plan wasn't Petraeus' is misleading.

Petraeus didn't plan the surge but the surge in and of itself isn't the difference in what success we've had.

Flipping the Sunnis reflects Petraeus' COIN approach, and that was accomplished by a change in tactics, not bodies (most of whom took long into 2007 to arrive anyway, much like the MRAPs). The numbers surge sustained those gains somewhat, but wouldn't have accomplished much on their own (much like the surge in general accomplishes little absent any diplomatic and reconstruction surge, which is just more evidence that this White House has effectively passed Iraq on to the next administration, with Petraeus as "czar" until such time ... And given their mismanagement to date, I'm happy to see the general in charge).

The flipping of the Sunnis was, in turn, a gift from AQI, which overreached in its crazy violence, which made clear their desire to fight America to the last Iraqi standing. Al-Qaeda simply blew it, like they always do, going overboard.

Petraeus took advantage of such mistakes, and did a fair share of likewise taming the insurgency--albeit at higher casualty rates (04-06 we averaged 70 a month, and the surge kicked it up above 90 across 07).

Now, with the continued surge, Petraeus hopes to do so similar good things with the Shia (reducing their infighting, limiting their tangling with Sunni as they consolidate power, and curtailing their arms connectivity with Iran). None will be easy, but Petraeus is pursuing a sober goal: not trying to stop the Shia ascendancy, but just keep it from being too nasty during his time.

Problem is, of course, Iran ain't going anywhere and has plenty of time--assuming the political system back home prevents Bush and Cheney from starting a war with them.

To me, the opposition should logically focus its attention there. Bush and State have given up on Iraq (whose effective dissolution is a done deal, meaning it's closer to a Lebanon than we were aiming for, but Tehran's more than okay with that), and they're fairly open to people about that. Everything regarding Iraq is now really about setting up Iran (thus the continued surge's refocusing on the Shia fits well with the long-standing push to Iranify the Long War), and again, this crew is fairly open about that.

So expect the war-with-Iran storyline continues to get a lot of airplay. I don't expect Bush & Co. to ever abandon this dream until the next president is sworn in (and I will admit, Podhoretz just about kills Rudy's appeal to me on that score, which is sad, because I don't get the sense Giuliani realizes how selling that line will make him seem too "out there" to voters following Bush-Cheney). I think it can only be prevented with sufficient backpressure from all concerned and responsible parties (again, either you fight the Long War sequentially or accumulatively, with the WWIV crowd favoring the take-on-everybody-now! approach). Me? I respect the long,hard slog reality of the Long War, and want an America than can finish instead of one that's finished from fatigue.

In short, if you want to "end this war" (a goal that, in my mind, is really all about reducing casualties, since six more months of surge likely gets us 5-600 more dead by spring--sad to say), focus on Iran for the rest of this term because Iraq's been passed along.