Two main arguments have emerged to counter any good news, or change in the media drumbeat in the lead-up to Petreus' assessment of possible progress in Iraq.
1. The "Wrong Enemy Anyway" ArgumentThis line of reasoning has the virtue of being tenable at any point in the past four years, regardless of the relative success or failure of the military effort. It's the crown gem in the far-Left canon, and it hinges on the fact that, despite the fact that the current enemy proudly calls themselves "al-Qaeda in Iraq" (AQI) and retains close ties to the mothership organization in the hills of Pakistan, these aren't the actually folks who caused 9/11.
Adherents to this mode of analysis need to also imagine that an Iraq devoid of American military presence will somehow, magically, not become a greater threat to the West if left in the hands of AQI. Likewise they need to suffer the moral entanglements of claiming that genocide in some cases (pick the latest African atrocity) is a reprehensible example of Western indifference - but the wide-scale civil war and ensuing bloodbath that will intensify following any early American retreat - well, somehow that's justified.
This argument is so outlandish and short-sighted that it belongs on the fringe. It relies on the situation getting much worse, much more deadly to Iraqis and dangerous to the United States, all as payback for a president that has been hated by folks in this quarter with blinding derangement since 2000. This is defeatism at its nadir.
2. The "Did-I-Say-Safety-I-Meant-Politics" ArgumentThis is the more standard mode of counter-argument, the one that is advanced by Democrats and inserted into articles by writers at the AP. It admits that yes, small gains have been made, but the political situation is in disarray, therefore long-term hope for a secure Iraq isn't warranted, and we should withdraw.
One charming aspect of this argument is that it's being made by the same folks who pointed to security, not politics, when the Iraqis were voting themselves silly with constitutions, parliaments and so forth, with impressive levels of participation. In those days the exact opposite charge was made as a way to deflate success. The next paragraph in those AP stories about elections was always about how many people died in bombings, and how unsafe large sections of the country continued to be, despite the good news.
Let's be honest, this argument is not without some merit. Stability in Iraq can only be attained if it has a non-dysfunctional government. But when we read stories about how the Iraqi parliament basically cancelled any upcoming activity, or how they can't come to agreement in certain areas - it's impossible not to think of our own congresspeople, who take a six-week vacation every summer, and whose proudest success in the most recent (and much-hyped) Democratic incarnation has consisted of one minimum wage law, and an incredible amount of anger and arm-waving over investigations and special prosecutors assigned to look into issues about which the average American citizen could care less.
And if you were an Iraqi politician, passionate about turning your country into a viable Democracy, how would you feel about your long-term chances for success after reading the American media day in and day out? It would look to me like the Yankees were seriously considering giving up and going home. This wouldn't make me feel positive about the safety of my family, or the long-term goal of keeping my head and neck attached.
Finally there are some clues in the recent news of progress that there may be some enduring changes afoot among the people of Iraq. Sure there are positive numbers on troop deaths, but (despite the hype) those don't tell you if safety or political harmony is any closer to being attained. And yes, we have confiscated a huge number of weapons in recent months relative to the past. But the best number and the one with the political angle - is the huge number of Iraqi people that are helping the troops root out AQI. In the spring of 2006 there were 6,000 helpful tips that were given to the security forces - and in spring 2007 there were 23,000.
This staggering increase suggests that the average folks in Iraq have had enough bloodshed from the terrorists, and they're no longer afraid, and they must see a future. It suggests the tide has turned at the grassroots level, and a change may be underway from the ground up in Iraq. What's that old liberal expression again? If the people lead, the leaders will follow?
--
It seems like this war could go either way. “Winning” may only take the form of withdrawing a sizable portion of our troops in a country that is partially-functional, one that still erupts into tribal scuffles. But if it’s not run by fascists, and if al-Qaeda has either been killed or seen its last remnants run across the border to Iran in women’s clothing, then a greater measure of safety will have been secured.
It sure would be refreshing if one political party in America didn’t have their entire political fortunes tied to our discredit and defeat. They seem to lack the imagination necessary to understand that it might be entirely possible to be against George W. Bush – and to think that Democrats would do a better job with America in 2008 – without also pining away for the prospect of failure.