Let’s return again to that BBC/ABC poll of Iraqis. This morning, Atrios links to an exchange between Michael Ware and Anderson Cooper on what’s happening in al Anbar province. Ware explains in a pretty straightforward way what we’ve been hearing from a lot of other sources. The Sunni tribes are ‘allying’ with us because they think and the Maliki government thinks we’re arming and supporting them as a counterweight to the central government. The Sunni insurgency has not only been against foreign (American) occupation but against domination by a majority Shia central government. So if we’re working with these Sunni tribes on the second count, perhaps that is the basis of their tactical alliance with us — not fighting al Qaeda.

In any case, back to those numbers from that poll.

What jumps out is overwhelming, even unanimous Sunni support for some key positions.

First, overall 57% of Iraqis think attacks on US troops are acceptable. 92% of Sunnis believe that.

Second, 62% of Iraqis support a unitary, as opposed to a decentralized state. But 97% of Sunnis believe that.

Third, 33% of Iraqis support the Maliki government. (Not great, but about Bush levels.) But only 2% of Sunnis support the Maliki government. 98% oppose it.

I’d like to hear what an Iraq expert thinks about those numbers. But it sounds to me like the Sunnis — the former rulers of the country — are entirely unreconciled to their new status as an embattled minority. And, as signified by the high percentage still committed to a centralized Iraq, they remain committed to regaining their earlier role. This latter point, is admittedly much more speculative. I can think of alternative readings.

But these numbers together make it sound very much like the civil war proper is ahead of us, not behind us. Each sides’ belief that it can win is the fuel of civil wars. And I suspect a tactical decision with respect to the Shia central government, not al Qaeda, is what’s behind the ‘Anbar Awakening.’

GOP backbencher bails on Iraq.

Larry Johnson, on the Iraq Kabuki dance.

Rudy’s emphasis on his terrorism-fighting qualifications not convincing GOP primary voters.

Perhaps it’s time Congress heard from military leaders other than Gen. Petraeus:

NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.” The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. “There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views” to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus.

Yesterday, Petraeus testified that Adm. Fallon and the Joint Chiefs support his recommendations. Why take his word for it?

If you want a read on the level on which this debate is being argued. In this exchange, Gen. Petraeus gets asked why his numbers don’t square with the GAO numbers. He responds by saying, their numbers are our numbers. Same thing. And if they would have had our great August numbers they would have dropped their pessimistic analysis of the situation on the ground in Iraq.

But this is a nonsensical statement.

Petraeus’s numbers from August couldn’t have made a difference since the argument between him and the GAO is over methodology — who gets counted as a dead Iraqi and who doesn’t.

Coleman now barely ahead of Franken in Minnesota senate race.

Sen. Feingold (D-WI) presses Petraeus and Crocker hard on whether Iraq has distracted from the fight against al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Romney campaign: We didn’t approve Phoney Fred website.

On Friday September 7, John Edwards delivered a major policy address at Pace University in New York City on combating terrorism and the war in Iraq. TPMtv caught up with the 2008 Democratic presidential candidate following his speech and talked to him about the “global war on terror” slogan, his new international anti-terrorism initiative, and what he would do if America had actionable intelligence about terrorists inside Pakistan. We bring you part I of our interview in today’s episode of TPMtv. Stay tuned tomorrow for part II …