Where Do We Stand In Iraq?

TW: This Ricks Q&A with the Economist frames my views on Iraq fairly well. Putting aside whether we should have been in Iraq in the first place (a huge assumption for the sake of discussion), how do things look since the "surge" in 2007. Has the surge achieved much other than providing an "honorable" means by which the U.S. reduces its presence? Was there value in delaying the inevitable fight amidst the various ethnics in Iraq perhaps. There was also a cost in American blood and treasure.

From Economist:
"DIA: You say the "surge" strategy in Iraq "succeeded tactically but failed strategically". What do you mean by that?
Mr Ricks: The surge achieved its military or tactical goal of improving security. But its stated goal was the larger, strategic one of creating a breathing space in which a political breakthrough could occur. No such breakthrough occurred. As General Odierno says in "The Gamble", we created a space, but some Iraqi leaders used it to move backward.

...all the major political questions that vexed Iraq before the surge are still there: How to share oil revenue. The relationship between Sunni, Shia and Kurd. Whether Iraq will have a strong central government or be a weak confederation. All of these questions have led to violence in the past, and are likely to again. Don't take it from me—take it from the former mayor of Tal Afar, who recently said that all the ingredients for civil war remain present in Iraq. The only element in the equation that is changing is that as US troop numbers go down, American influence will wane.

DIA: How much of the success of the surge was due to the change in American tactics, and how much to the change in attitude on the part of the Iraqis (ie, the Anbar awakening)?
Mr Ricks: Both were major ingredients. A third important factor was a new American attitude—a new humility, a sudden willingness to listen to Iraqis and even to those considered enemies, and even to put 100,000 Sunni insurgents on the American payroll. A fourth was the fact that by the time the American approach changed, the ethnic cleansing of much of Baghdad was completed.

DIA: You've written a series of blog posts titled, "Iraq the unraveling", that you describe as "a running commentary about what is unfolding every day before our very eyes". What needs to happen to stop this process of unraveling and how much of the burden falls on American troops in the country?
Mr Ricks: I don’t know what needs to happen to lead to political change, but I doubt the answer is a military one. The role the American troops play now is kind of a referee, to prevent civil war from breaking out again, and to try to make sure that Iraqi soldiers and police treat Iraqi civilians decently. I do worry that the plan to bring troop numbers down swiftly next year (2010) will erode the ability of the Americans to carry out those two missions."