That's the thing, though. The idea that the surge is working isn't universally agreed upon. First off, what is the goal of the surge? You can say that it is working because the violence is gown. Great, ok. But under that reasoning, Saddam Hussein was working pretty well, too, since none of this violence happened until we invaded in the first place. We're always winning the war so long as we have the sole power to keep moving the goal post.
But let's act like reducing violence IS our only goal in Iraq. Ok, great. But why is the violence dropping? It's easy to say that it's because of the surge because violence dropped after the surge was implemented. But then you're ignoring many of the other variables that have taken effect since the level of violence has dropped. The surge aside, a lot of things have changed - local Sunnis in Baghdad and other areas in the country began an anti-al Qaeda resurgence - not in support of the United States, but in retaliation against al Qaeda's civilian attacks, reckless violence, and attacks on Sunni leaders (not to mention their calls for a radical jihadist government that the Sunni insurgents wanted nothing to do with). It's the same way that many of the South Vietnamese took up arms to help the efforts of the National Liberation Front during the Vietnam - only this time it just so happens to be helping us. The civilians are just getting tired of the violence, so they're now doing something about it. If you don't think that this insurgency has been the backbone to the reduced violence in Iraq, you should probably ask yourself why many of them are now on U.S. Military payroll (known as the Sons of Iraq).
There are many other factors as well, but to say that the surge is working by simply because violence down is rather short sighted in my opinion. I think I already posted this link here once, but I'll post it again because it's one of the best articles I've read in a while on Iraq. Steven Simon, member of the Council on Foreign Relations, talks about the blindfold of short-term success, and why our activities in Iraq are actually poking the burning coals of longterm blowback.
As far as talking to enemies is concerned, you seem to be toting the talking point on this one. Barack Obama has never claimed that "we only need to talk to Iran and everything will be ok," but he's arguing that it is foolish to think that we should prohibit any kind of possible solutions by putting our arrogant foot down and declaring that diplomacy is off the table. Especially when we spend so much time holding hands with the Saudis then acting like we care about human rights issues and Israel when refusing to deal with Iran.
