Oops:

Democratic leaders in Congress had planned to use August recess to raise the heat on Republicans to break with President Bush on the Iraq war. Instead, Democrats have been forced to recalibrate their own message in the face of recent positive signs on the security front, increasingly focusing their criticisms on what those military gains have not achieved: reconciliation among Iraq’s diverse political factions.

Where the strategy was first to argue that the military surge would not work, the Democrats seem to be ready to acknowledge - behind closed doors that is - that they were wrong. Instead of admitting that publicly, though, they choose to focus on something else: the main message is and remains the same - Iraq is lost. There is no hope.

Now, I am a critic of the surge - I supported the war for a long time until I believed that Bush et al. messed it up beyond repair. I criticized the surge because, to me, it seemed as if it was too little and especially too late. However, now I see that there might be something good happening in Iraq I - and other critics - have to be so honest to acknowledge the progress made. This does not mean that we should suddenly embrace the surge, but it does mean that we should try to keep an open mind about it. As I said, basically, when the surge started: I hope Bush proves me wrong.

He just might.

Of course, political reconciliation is a big part of it as well. Without true political progress, all miltary progress is useless. However, the surge was not meant to solve the political issues - it was only meant to oppress the sectarian violence and, by doing so, Bush and those who support the surge hoped that it would give al-Maliki et al. time (and the will) to take the necessary political steps. In this regard, one could very well argue that al-Maliki is not exactly proving himself to be a good leader, but there is still time. The Iraqi Parliament could replace him (who knows); instead of reconciling from the top down, it seems to be going from the bottom up, so progress is made, at least to a degree.

Again, this does not mean that all will be well. I remain a critic, because I think that it is incredibly difficult to overcome the sectarian strife so soon. The different sects and tribes have hated each other for centuries, and this hatred has only increased under Saddam’s rule and, again later, once the US got rid of the brutal dictator from Tikrit. However, the way the Democrats deal with this does not exactly satisfy me either. Instead of looking at how the damage can be controled, and how as many people as possible can be helped, the Democrats give me the impression that they want the surge to fail because, if it fails, it will help them politically.

This goes not just for the Democratic leadership, but also for quite some people who vote for the Democrats. How else can their constant “all is lost, who cares about progress, all is lost, we will lose really we will” attitude be explained? The passion is not rational.

Ed Morrissey points out that even Barack Obama suggested yesterday that Iraq “could use another 30,000 troops.” Morrissey’s post on this is, by the way, a must read. I greatly encourage you all to read it in full (not that I agree with everything he writes, but he has a strong case):

Now that their predictions of military failure have have died, the Democrats want to focus on the lack of political reform as a reason to leave. In January, they talked about how futile it was to play “whack-a-mole” when terrorists would simply move back and forth, and that the American and Iraqi forces could not clear and hold territory. Since that’s been proven wrong, they now claim that the current Iraqi government cannot possibly institute the reforms Congress demands, such as oil revenue sharing and the forgiveness of former Ba’athists. Unless Iraq succeeds in these reforms as a sign of unity, we should withdraw, the argument will go.

That case appears weaker and weaker, however. Nouri al-Maliki has used the National Assembly recess to bypass his Shi’ite allies and start negotiations with Sunni tribal chiefs in Tikrit, the heart of Sunni resistance to his government. He negotiated cooperative agreements between the Kurds and the Shi’ite Islamic Council, the opponent of Maliki’s former ally, Moqtada al-Sadr. Sadr’s divisive influence has dramatically waned over the last few months — and that started with the surge in February, when Sadr hotfooted it to Iran.

All, however, has not been said. It will be interesting to see what Ambassador Crocker has to say about the situation in Iraq. Will he be reasonably positive / hopeful, or will he say that no matter what is done militarily, the political problems will never be solved?

All in all, the situation remains difficult and complicated. It is too easy to constantly focus on what is going wrong - as it is too easy to repeat the talking points of the Bush administration (six more months and so on). What should be done is this: lets wait for the reports and lets then - and only then - draw lasting conclusions. The Democrats and certain critics spoke too soon - let us not make that mistake again. Lets wait, lets await the report(s).

More at Blue Crab Boulevard and Sister Toldjah on the right, and at Daily Kos and Taylor Marsh on the left.

Cross posted at The Van Der Galiën Gazette (my new and improved blog).