After a couple of days when morning conference has been very quiet or has dealt with matters other than public debate, this morning's robust discussion took many post-Christmas partygoers by surprise.

Is our view on Iraq becoming unbalanced? Has our coverage, particularly in comment and leader articles slipped behind developments and left us looking as if we are cheering at failure?

The reasons given for asking the question are as follows:
• violence in Baghdad has fallen by around 60-70% since the US "surge" began
• nationally the figure is much the same
• sectarian violence has dropped in the process
• the Sunni Arabs turning against al-Qaida is significant
• trouble spots such as Kirkuk are being handled
• the economy has grown by 5% this year
• the Saddam-era debt has been either repaid or forgiven
• Iran's cross-border activity has lessened
• external relations, particularly with Syria and Turkey (in spite of the latest incursions), are warming and the Gulf Summit, which was attended by President Ahmadinejad of Iran, saw the Saudis promise increased investment in Iraq.

So, the argument continued, in spite of all the obvious failings and the fragile nature of changes, things have improved since the US surge and our coverage doesn't adequately reflect this. It is a very complex picture but the surge initially made a difference to Baghdad, Anbar province, and other Sunni areas. Iraqi exiles are returning, for whatever reasons. But the tide is turning.

In reply it was asked where the political progress is happening? News from our correspondents on the ground tends to show that all of the above is taking place but is only being held fast by the presence of thousands of occupying troops who are locking down segregated areas. What happens when they withdraw?

In answer it was noted that the surge had peaked and that the extra US troops were due to be withdrawn by March next year; that, politically, the benchmark laws demanded by the White House hadn't been passed by the Baghdad government but de-Ba'athifcation has been reversed in both the army and in government ministries; and that although the oil-sharing legislation had not been passed either, in practice it was taking place with funds coming from the Kurdish north to the south.

In addition, "concerned local citizens' " committees appeared to be operating with a degree of success and some sort consensus was at last emerging against the daily carnage. Whether it is just war fatigue or can be ascribed to other factors, the fact is that 90% of the suicide bombings now appear to be carried out by foreign fighters.

In defence, it was noted that most of the comment and leader coverage recently has been concerned with Basra, which is clearly not a success. Neither the foreign secretary, David Miliband, nor the prime minister, Gordon Brown, had managed to leave the security of the airfield during their recent visits.

It was further argued that the view put was only one point of view, which has been expressed in the pages of the paper and on Comment is Free. Those with contrary views have often referred to some of the points made as well.

In general, our news coverage tends to pull the comment articles behind it and there is no shortage of that -- when we can physically be there and accurately report what is happening. Our record in that respect is a good one.

But it was agreed that a periodic audit of our pronouncements in a fast-moving and difficult situation is necessary. We have to be careful, as usual, of all spin and it was noted that the Foreign Office is at present busy trying to dissuade the Americans from displaying hubris at recent developments, while the State Department is likewise engaged with the White House.