Why the down turn in violence in Iraq is not the result of troop surge

In January of 2007 President Bush in a reaction to the escalating violence of the insurgency in Iraq announced that he would be sending an additional 21,500 U.S. troops there to help quell the uprisings. In March he announced an additional 8,000 to up the total of U.S. forces to around 170,000. In the military they refer to this kind of thing as a "Mission Creep". It refers to when a combat mission is expanded slowly but surely and before anybody knows it the goals of the mission have changed too. There is no denying that the amount of violence in Iraq is down now that we are at the end of the year but that has more to do with the heavy hand of Al Queda than with the new Americans in theater.
When the U.S. first invaded Iraq there were certain elements inside the country that banded together to resist the American ocupation. These elements consisted of Mostly former military commanders and Sadam loyalists who had been thrown out of their jobs when the U.S came in and took over. These elements banded together with Al Queda because they had a common enemy to fight and they did so until Al Queda started to throw its weight around with them too much and that caused a rift between them. Al Queda began enforcing its own brand of strict Islamic law with the citizens in the towns and villages of Iraq and they were doing so violently. There were some reports that they were beheading women because they were daring to be seen in public without head scarves which is a strict no no in Islamic law. Other reports were that they were threatening to wipe out the entire families of anyone who joined the police force and tried to restore order. The locals after dealing and living with this new brand of terror began to rebel against Al Queda and stopped setting I.E.D.'s in the roads to blow up american humvee's and began resisting the presence of Al Queda and started to drive them out of their villages with the help of the Americans who they were fighting previously.
The other big reason for the slow down in the violence is that the Bush administration changed its tune towards both Syria and Iran. Initially the Bush White House was openly blaming Syria for fueling the insurgency by claiming that they were not controlling their border and preventing new insurgents from coming down into Iraq to take on the Americans. They also accused Iran of aiding the insurgents by providing them with landmines to help blow up American military vehicles. These complaints while more than likely true never the less poisoned the well in terms of fostering even more ill will Between the U.S. and these countries which probably lead to their only adding even more intensity on their parts to their efforts to thwart the Americans in Iraq. Now that the Rhetoric has calmed down quite a bit and the Bush White house has toned down its shouting at these two countries the violence has toned down too. It's amazing to see just how far you can get when you use a little bit of careful diplomacy. it can get you the results that an entire Army cannot get you. It simply is not that plausible that the troop surge is responsible for the down turn in violence. You mean to tell me that we had over 140,000 soldiers fighting in Iraq and we could not put the lid on the insurgency but adding just 28,000 more troops did the trick? Its too small an amount to have made such a radical difference.
It is difficult to tell if the violence will continue to decline or not. Certainly the American public has tired of hearing about all the dead and wounded soldiers it has suffered through in the last nearly five years not to mention the enormous cost of the war. The good news may be bringing some hope that maybe the worst of it is over and we have finally turned a corner and are looking at possibly the beginning of the end of this long national nightmare. Its not likely but it certainly is worth hoping for. The families of the soldiers fighting there are probably all keeping their fingers crossed.