Over the past few weeks the Bush Administration has mounted a publicity surge to tout the success of the President's policy of a military surge in Iraq. The exemplary dynamics offered as proof of the success of this military surge are the events that have occurred in Al Anbar, the site of President Bush's recent visit to Iraq. And, indeed, something encouraging has happened in Anbar, the former home of the Sunni insurgency.

What has happened? In the spring and summer of 2006 various Sunni tribes began forming an alliance called Sahawah Al Anbar, or Anbar Awakening. This coalition of some 30 Sunni tribes has over the past year worked with U.S. forces to fight the Al Qaeda in Iraq (AIQ) extremists.

Why did this happen? Quite simply, the moderate Sunnis in Anbar were forced to protect themselves against the murderous activities of AIQ. Having experienced the Taliban-like viciousness of AIQ, the Sunni tribal leaders decided that AIQ was to be more despised than the U.S. military. And, thus, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" became the operational policy. The former insurgents are now allies. (Talk about amnesty!)

How should these events be interpreted? The Bush Administration, understandably, has held up the Anbar events as a success of the U.S. military surge. The limitation of this argument, of course, is that the dynamics in Anbar were initiated by the Sunnis before the U.S. military surge even started. My opinion is that AIQ--by just acting out their totalitarian nature--precipitated these reactionary events. This is not to say the the support that the U.S. military has offered has not been of help.

Rather, I am concerned that the events in Anbar have been co-opted by the Bush Administration and used as not only a justification for the war but as a justification for continuing the Administration's current policies. And, given President Bush's Thursday night speech to the nation, he envisions these policies as continuing for many years.

Such "political spin" also seems evident throughout the Administration's presentation of the alleged decline in violence in Baghdad. Seldom is it mentioned that Baghdad has become a ghettoized city where Sunnis and Shiites have been so displaced into fortified ethnic enclaves that it has become much more difficult to fight each other. Add to this consideration the fact that an estimated four million Iraqis now form an Iraqi diaspora , and we must recognize that it is more difficult to enact a civil war if there if no one around to participate. And, of course, the untold thousands of dead Iraqis can not be blamed.

Honestly, I can't blame George Bush--the politician--for trying to find something positive to talk about in the midst of this tragic endeavor. But, I do wonder about George Bush--the man--and his oft reported concern about his presidential legacy. As a man who has stated that the key power in his life is God, what does he think God will make of all this? And, what does his party think?