Surely you're joking.
1. America never went to war for the freedom and security of Iraq. The pitch the Congress bought was about the freedom and security of America. Which turned out to be a bust, because Iraq did not threaten American freedom and security in the way Bush told us it did.
2. And even then, people who had the sense to oppose the war were told, "You do not care about safety." That is simply untrue: I did not ever believe that Iraq was a threat to safety. Saying that people don't care about safety sets up a straw man and knocks him down, completely dodging the argument: this horrendous war has, by every analyst's estimation, made America less safe. Find evidence to t...

Surely you're joking.
1. America never went to war for the freedom and security of Iraq. The pitch the Congress bought was about the freedom and security of America. Which turned out to be a bust, because Iraq did not threaten American freedom and security in the way Bush told us it did.
2. And even then, people who had the sense to oppose the war were told, "You do not care about safety." That is simply untrue: I did not ever believe that Iraq was a threat to safety. Saying that people don't care about safety sets up a straw man and knocks him down, completely dodging the argument: this horrendous war has, by every analyst's estimation, made America less safe. Find evidence to the contrary if you like, but don't pretend to be inside my head.
3. Petraeus main task was giving Baghdad enough security to make political compromise possible. He succeeded. The Iraqis chose not to take advantage of it. That is not an American failure.
4. The expulsion of foreign fighters from Anbar province is a good thing, but not indicative of progress on the main issue: Sunni v. Shiite conflict. Local Sunni tribesmen, outraged that foreign Sunnis were raping their daughters, took advantage of the moment to shoot them up. The civil war, especially visible in Baghdad, remains unaddressed.
5. It is projected that 600 American soldiers will die between now and Spring. After years, there is no evidence that these deaths will contribute to any advance of freedom or enhancement of American security. If there is, show it - show me evidence worth 600 dead American young people. Show me you care about more than politics.
6. What we went for, what our troops die for, is American security. If the General - obviously a smart and informed guy - isn't sure that we're getting what we came for, wouldn't we be wise to listen carefully to him, rather than just write him off with a "opinions insignificant"?

On point one, I partially agree with you. It was a catalyst for action as was wmd, defying US sanctions and Iraqi support for terrorism. The freddom and security in Iraq is imperative to the goal of changing the nature of the Middle East.

The reason for the war in Iraq is much more regionally focused. With developing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's people are more likely to have support to rise up against their radical regime. You cannot view the battle in Iraq as isolated from the War on Islamic Extremism. There is a complex and far-reaching agenda being waged here and it really does not matter who is President , outside of Dennis Kucinich, it will proceed.

This is a campaig...

On point one, I partially agree with you. It was a catalyst for action as was wmd, defying US sanctions and Iraqi support for terrorism. The freddom and security in Iraq is imperative to the goal of changing the nature of the Middle East.

The reason for the war in Iraq is much more regionally focused. With developing democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq, Iran's people are more likely to have support to rise up against their radical regime. You cannot view the battle in Iraq as isolated from the War on Islamic Extremism. There is a complex and far-reaching agenda being waged here and it really does not matter who is President , outside of Dennis Kucinich, it will proceed.

This is a campaign that will poentally last several years if not decades. Now you can belly-ache all you want for the sole reason of the President have an (R) after his name all you want. The fact is we either win control of Iraq or our security will be threatened more than ever, because Iraq will make Darfur look like a kindergarten playground.

In this context, certainly American security is improved. It is not, however, Gen Petreus' place to declare such a thing. To assume that it is, is just political bovine scatology.

But Islamic extremism was not an issue in Iraq until we got there, and is only a tiny fraction of the conflict now, which the President is ever trying to make look larger than it is.
Further, Iran would not have the government it has had not the US overthrown its nascent democracy in 1953 (because they nationalized the oil industry after 50 years of underhanded double-dealing by the British) and installed the Shah, then trained his secret police. A diverse set of groups rose up against the corruption of the Shah's regime, and because the religious group looked like the biggest change from the US-backed regime, they won public support. Even the taking of the US Embassy there happened as a r...

But Islamic extremism was not an issue in Iraq until we got there, and is only a tiny fraction of the conflict now, which the President is ever trying to make look larger than it is.
Further, Iran would not have the government it has had not the US overthrown its nascent democracy in 1953 (because they nationalized the oil industry after 50 years of underhanded double-dealing by the British) and installed the Shah, then trained his secret police. A diverse set of groups rose up against the corruption of the Shah's regime, and because the religious group looked like the biggest change from the US-backed regime, they won public support. Even the taking of the US Embassy there happened as a result of US intervention: Radio Turkey suggested that the CIA was again operating from the US Embassy to overthrow the new regime, as it had in '53, and students - finding the idea pretty reasonable - stormed it and took hostages.

The US reputation in the region is NOT that it supports democracy; it is that it pursues access to oil.

I certainly agree that without awareness of US history in the region, it looks like a region-wide strategy is a credible thing. But if that strategy is the case, it is a totally new direction for US policy, and out of context with the last sixty years. May I suggest A brief history of Iran-US relations, Part 1: Constitution to Khatami. It is mostly a summary of a speech of the University of Michigan's distinguished Middle East scholar Juan Cole, who has one of the most informative and intelligent blogs on the subject that can be found on the web.
And, by the way, I am not a Democrat and do not care what letter is behind a President's name. I will be the opposition party no matter who's in power.