The American Spectator

Second, Iraqi politicians are unlikely to issue their own press releases, explaining their votes to a constituency they do not serve. Americans have sacrificed men and treasure to a cause benefiting Iraqi politicians. How that entitles American politicians to impose failure on them is unclear. Even more unclear is how closely American politicians are watching anyway — are Democrats going to carefully scrutinize every Iraqi farm bill?

Finally, Iraqi politicians are not the reason cited for a need to withdraw in the first place. The idea of “Iraq as Quagmire” resonates because of the perceived hopelessness of the effort. One questioner in last week’s YouTube debate noted the three flags of his family’s military service, the most recent one belonging to his son, dead from the current war. “I do not want to see my youngest sons joining them,” he demanded, asking, “By what date after January 21st, 2009, will all U.S. troops be out of Iraq?”

Based on O’Hanlon and Pollack’s assessment? If we’re seeing success, militarily, then the questioner’s youngest sons will be safe and no date would need to be established. (Of course another solution would be to provide his youngest sons with alternatives to the lives of soldiers. Might I suggest conservative journalism? Then again, maybe not.)

THE GOAL of the surge was to provide a setting in which the political situation would improve. Thus, as military successes mount, so might the possibilities for improvement overall. But to suggest that Iraqi politicians are going to pull Iraq out of the mud is silly, much like the old myth about Franklin Delano Roosevelt pulling America out of the Great Depression.

Iraqis are going to be the ones for the job of cleaning up. With any luck, our guns will be the ones giving them cover while they do it.