Taking Nightline at their word they weren't relying on the US military to set up massive security cordons for them at these places they saw. Their goal was to travel with minimal security and rapidly from place to place to get a sense of what was happening when there wasn't a staged event like US Legislators visiting a Baghdad market.
I saw a report recently (I think it was on CNN, but I'm not sure.) about a kind of Baghdad neighborhood watch program. (Neighborhood watch with Assault Rifles.) Basically, Iraqis would set up checkpoints on a perimeter around their neighborhood. The reporters could move freely in those neighborhoods and they were safe. Although they couldn't be out on the street long at night or they'd be patted down by the neighboorhood watch patrols. It's hardly the kind of security that one would want, but it was much better than a year ago.
Well, I doubt that having some safe neighborhoods temporarily is the "light at the end of the tunnel" as they constantly claimed during the Vietnam War. BTW I watch the ABC Nightly News nightly on TIVO, ,so I saw some of the NIghtline footage.
^ They weren't claiming it was the light at the end of the tunnel just that since the surge some parts of Baghdad appear to be safer than before. If that is the measuring stick for the surge then it appears to be working. I don't know if it can be sustained and am very skeptical about the ability to sustain it or that the improved security is anything more than temporary but McCain might not be totally off base to claim that the security situation has improved.
Lot of qualifiers in that sentence SC. I would submit it is not a measuring stick. The only real measure: Is it sustainable?
I don't deny there aren't qualifiers but if the measure is are things safer in Baghdad there appears to be evidence they are.
Here's a press release just out from 60 Minutes on the McCain Baghdad 'stroll' ... Now, I'm still curious about this Times of London report that said 21 workers from that market were abducted and executed the next day. As I noted later the same day, it's hard to know precisely what happened here or what it means without a lot more local knowledge. But on its face it seems at least worth seeing if these two events weren't connected. I haven't seen any follow-up on this. Is the original Times piece accurate? If not, I'd like to know. And if it is, as I assume, I'd like to hear about just what happened and whether it was tied in any way -- as retaliation, a statement, etc. -- to McCain's visit. -- Josh Marshall http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
