They're pretty much the same results that have been going on since 2003, so it's consistent with a lot of the attitudes that exist. We're not seen as liberators by the Sunnis, but what else is new?

It's posturing. The question is: What kind of clout does the political posture have?

The question is, what does victory mean? It certainly isn't the number of people we kill or detain.

How much of the battle space can the Iraqi forces take over, and who is actually doing the fighting - those are the key measurements. The measure cannot be the elimination of the insurgency, as desirable as that would be. You cannot eliminate all of the bombings.

You're watching the insurgents develop more sophisticated methods of attack, and more sophisticated IEDs. They're using shaped charges and anti-tank mines stacked together. They're using 500-pound bombs that can destroy any armored vehicle. They're using these so-called swarming attacks, firing several RPG rounds at one lightly armored vehicle.

On a day-to-day basis, the overall level of security is obviously low. We can't secure the airport road, can't stop the incoming into the Green Zone, can't stop the killings and kidnappings.

Yes, we have learned from the last two years and, yes, there are signs of real progress, but I don't see the kind of definitive trends that would allow you to say victory is assured.

If, as is certainly possible, the situation devolves down to civil war or separatism, then no amount of military action can really deal with the problem.

We need to understand that this is a warning, ... Over the next few months we're going to see a referendum on a constitution that's going to trigger more debates on Shiite identity ... The idea that the constitution or referendum is going to clear this up is unrealistic.

You can't win in Anbar, Baghdad or anywhere else except politically.

It may well be more of a prelude to civil war than a step forward. Rather than an inclusive document, it is more a recipe for separation based on Shiite and Kurdish privilege.

The decline in the readiness of Iraqi forces described in (the) testimony is a major reversal for the United States. We expected to be far better off today, not only in terms of the highest readiness category, but the second.(category of readiness).

If you pull out troops too quickly now, and you see the situation in Iraq collapse before the midterm elections, the impact is going to be far more serious than if you keep the troops in at reasonable levels.

There is no security, even in relatively safe areas. In some provinces, you have 40 percent unemployment which means effectively nobody cares whether somebody in Baghdad is making a great deal of money.

He has studied military tactics and counterinsurgency operations, but I don't think this is someone who sees himself as a commander. This is someone who sees himself as a stimulator.

They have begun to realize that when you focus only on the U.S. it gives the impression that the U.S. doesn't care about Iraqis. In these kinds of political battles you need to count your allies, not just yourself.

The problem is people don't live on economic statistics.

The reality is that if the Shi'ites and Kurds can be inclusive and if they can reach a settlement with most of the Iraqi Sunnis, then the efforts of U.S. and coalition forces and the growing Iraqi forces are almost certain to be successful.