This little dude's name is Noah.

And since we're playing follow-up, here's a round-up of reaction to the President's "surge" speech. From the people whose reaction matters. (Cynical right-wing columnists who have more invested in distancing themselves from that embarrassing Bush than victory, I am snarking at you.) ninme notes a couple of my links and finds a few more. Plus here's one more reaction: Omar at Iraq the Model writes the terrorists are already fleeing Baghdad:

In Diyala, politicians, religious and tribal figures demanded that their province be included in the security plan of Baghdad. This came after dozens of foreign Arab militants ran away from Baghdad to areas across Diyala in order to avoid raids by the Iraqi and American forces during the incoming security plan to secure Baghdad.

I am just disgusted with many movement "Conservatives" at the moment. I suppose I'll buck up in a day or two and think well of my fellow man again, but tell me how columns like this (and it's only the latest in a series from this author and many others who were gung-ho on the war until recently) are any different in spirit or tone than Joe Biden's saying

If you really want to change the situation on the ground, demonstrate to the president he’s on his own.
Disagreement is fine; discussion of tactics is fine. Even honest skepticism I can take. What I am sick of is the detached, cynical snarking at the President and his administration -- as if the commenters themselves had no stake in the outcome of this war. It has rarely been as obvious as in the past few months that prudence & fortitude are in extremely short supply everywhere on the political spectrum.

And I'm especially annoyed because the Conservative columnist rap seems to be that the "surge" isn't enough, won't do any good, blah, blah --ignoring the fact that it's a 300% increase in troop strength in Baghdad and a substantial change in strategy. Geez Louise, what are these people going to say if it works?

Of course, I'm annoyed with the Administration, too. I am sick of the picture of Iraq as a hellhole where our boys sit helplessly getting picked off, when in fact they are dealing substantial defeats to terrorists fighters there. The end of every story on Iraq, no matter the topic, ends with: "another x many soldiers killed today." No one tells us this:
this was something that came up when I saw the President, because people were wondering why we don't release casualty figures for the other side. In other words, we only hear about the American troops who die, and Iraqi civilians who die, and he pulled a piece of paper from his side, and said that in some little bit of action that very morning, that I think it was something like 1,000 terrorists had been killed. Well, I think Americans would be quite heartened at the number of bad guys being killed by coalition forces in Iraq, and that it would be worth, actually, getting that side of the equation. There's no point in releasing a score if you're only giving one team's score.
HH: You know, I asked Tony Snow about that, and he said well, for example, in a recent month, 103 Americans had died, and more than 5,000 terrorists died.
Insert disclaimer about death being solemn and grievous and war being hell here, but why aren't we allowed to know we're winning? That's one thing I do fault the President for. That he's inarticulate is one thing; we're each dealt a certain skill-set. But the non-communication of this administration is obviously policy --and I don't get it and I'm tired of it. It would be nice if the Administration could use the upcoming hearings on foreign policy in the way Ollie North once used a certain slide show. That would perk me right up. Too much to hope for, though.

Frustrated mad-at-everyone rant circumvented now, as I have other business this afternoon.

You know who has a noble attitude? The US Conference of Bishops.
our nation cannot just look back. We must now look around and look ahead. The intervention in Iraq has brought with it a new set of moral responsibilities to help Iraqis secure and rebuild their country and to address the consequences of the war for the region and the world. The central moral question is not just the timing of U.S. withdrawal, but rather the nature and extent of U.S. and international engagement that allows for a responsible transition to security and stability for the Iraqi people. As the late Pope John Paul II said in the wake of the Iraq war: The many attempts made by the Holy See to avoid the grievous war in Iraq are already known. Today what matters is that the international community help put the Iraqis, freed from an oppressive regime, in a condition to be able to take up their Country's reins again, consolidate its sovereignty and determine democratically a political and economic system that reflects their aspirations, so that Iraq may once again be a credible partner in the International Community.
Strangely, Bush & the Bishops are now more or less on the same side with respect to Iraq. More or less.