By VictorM:

A decrease in violence in Iraq has some on the right all giddy about the possible outcome of US involvement in that country. As they have done all along, since before the invasion even begun, they are wrong, over-simplifying, and ignoring facts.

There are many takes about the reasons for the decrease in deaths, and this view is as plausible as any:

The Sunni Arabs of Iraq turned against al Qa'ida partly because it tried to monopolise power but primarily because it brought their community close to catastrophe. The Sunni war against US occupation had gone surprisingly well for them since it began in 2003. It was a second war, the one against the Shia majority led by al-Qa'ida, which the Sunni were losing, with disastrous results for themselves. "The Sunni people now think they cannot fight two wars - against the occupation and the government - at the same time," a Sunni friend in Baghdad told me last week. "We must be more realistic and accept the occupation for the moment."

The key words are "for the moment". That implies the Sunnis will wait and see what the political outcome is and what their role in the government will be. An additional easy-to-understand explanation for the respite is that they will wait out the decrease in the level of troops because they know that no matter who the US president is, the US cannot maintain the level of troops currently in Iraq. Better to hunker down and wait till the situation is more favorable.

The likelihood of the Sunnis and Shia both being satisfied with a political outcome as long as George Bush is involved is as good as he ever pronouncing the word "subliminal" correctly.