Read this if you're in a swoon because of all the "good news" coming out of Iraq.

I've often heard over the years that there's a lot of "good news" in Iraq that never makes it to press, and that all the media wants to report are the horror stories, the corruption, the fledgling government's failures, etc. blah blah blah.  It's true that many media sources have harped on the horror, at times overshadowing small victories and even somewhat hopeful human interest stories.  But in the wake of the "surge" and Presidential election politics, it's become more important than ever for the Right to condemn the "liberal media" for refusing to acknowledge our "success" in Iraq.  It's important for Americans to believe that their Army is winning against the insurgents and succeeding in its mission to establish security; it's important for Americans to believe this untruth as the Republican election machine that has been so tied up with Bush's Iraq policies gears up for another White House run.

Just a clarifying point: the media has not been shying away from reporting the "good news" coming out of Iraq. In fact, it's become common sense across the airwaves that "the surge is working"; hence McCain's sudden appeal, and hence the Democrats sudden fear of the powerful question: "So, Dem candidates, all of you have opposed to war for some time and campaigned on a promise of scheduled withdrawal. Now that the 'tide has turned' in Iraq, how have your Iraq plans changed?"

Articles citing the success of the "surge" have appeared in both the NY Times and the Washington Post in recent weeks, sometimes begrudging admissions from journalists who previously advocated immediate withdrawal. The sentiment is this: "Damn. It seems like there might actually be hope. Now what do we do."

But anyone who uncritically accepts the "good news" coming from Iraq is begging for long term disappointment. The "good news" has perhaps less to do with the success of the "surge" and more to do with a record exodus of displaced Iraqis. Over 800,000 Iraqis were displaced either within Iraq or to one of the neighboring countries in the past year. There are now as many as 4 million Iraqi refugees spread throughout Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (a country that recently closed its borders officially to Iraqis, though they'll still come illegally — and they're in most of the other countries illegally too).

So who does all of this "good news" benefit exactly? Also, remember that news of "decreased violence" does not signify an actual decrease in violence to manageable levels, only a decrease from the completely chaotic violence of 2006-2007. Now we're back to mere chaos instead of full-scale civil war. It remains to be seen whether or not the Iraqis will take this relative "calm" and run with it. And when they do decide to "get serious" about things, how will they handle the flood of four million displaced and frustrated people that will come pouring back into their borders, having been kicked out of their host countries?

Don't talk to me about "good news" from Iraq. When it comes to war, there's really no such thing as "good news." You demean the seriousness of the situation by reducing to simple questions of good or bad media, as if the media have anything to do with the way the military conducts the war in which we are currently embroiled and probably will be for years to come.