Clark was trying to explain that the US surge troops weren't the only ones who deserve credit for the improvement in Iraq. He was saying that the Saudis were instrumental in helping calm things down in western Iraq due to their work with the tribes there. The moderator guy was saying that Clark was crediting the Iranians in eastern Iraq and the Saudis in western Iraq and that the American troops weren't being given enough credit. Reality is probably somewhere in between. YMMV.
While the U.S. has borne the largest burden of the effort, it's always been a coalition job. It's great that the Saudis are helping out.
Actually, I think the biggest effect of the surge wasn't the physical boots on the ground, though that helped. It was the fact that Iran realized they misevaluated the situation. Certainly it was Iran that stirred up the civil war rumblings, but they realized two things. One, the Shi'a were just as likely to fight their own sect under different tribal banners as they were the Sunni. This is why the Sunni managed to dominated the much larger Shi'ite population for decades in the first place. Two, that at the height of the casualties, at the height of the bloodletting and violence, with a president with very low popularity whose party just got it's ass kicked in the off year elections, they were still committed to winning the war. They assumed we'd just pack up our bags and leave when it got too bloody. Iran and the US started backchannel diplomacy about 9 months ago when it was obvious the US was commited to the region and the Bush admin finally realized that the Iranians could make Iraq extremely expensive. We may end up with a rapprochment before the end of Bush's term. Bush wants it, because he is looking at his legacy, and Iran wants it, because of various political issues at home as well. Neither side wants a shooting war over Nukes or over Iraq. There's going to be some really fascinating books coming out on this in a decade or so.
