The Surge is working

The Campaign Spot: "Two thoughts on the op-ed of the day, Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack's vivid potrait of an Iraq in which U.S. military forces are steadily achieving their goals, that concludes, "there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008." First, I disagree with Dean Barnett's characterization of the Brookings Institution as "hard left." Gregg Easterbrook, William Galston, Stuart Taylor, former #2 at the CIA John McLaughlin... these are not hard lefties, and it's silly to describe an institution that has them in their ranks as such. I understand the impulse to argue that progress in Iraq is not just being reported by conservatives or administration allies, but let's not overstate the liberal bona fides of these folks. But these men are generally regarded as trustworthy asessors of Iraq by left, right, and center, and their description is based on eight days in Baghdad, Ramadi, Tal Afar, Mosul and Ramadi. So my second thought is, if the Democratic presidential candidates disagree with their assessment (I presume they disagree with their conclusion) then I'd like to know how and why. Did O’Hanlon and Pollack not see what they think they saw in Iraq? Is someone in Washington, or New York, or Chicago getting a clearer picture of the state of affairs on the ground in Iraq than someone who walked the streets of Baghdad and Ramadi? I'm willing to be persuaded that a pullout is the best course of action for the United States. Right now the argument from Democrats is endlessly repeating the mantra, "civil war, civil war, civil war." Well, tell that to O’Hanlon and Pollack, or even better, listen to them and tailor your policy prescriptions accordingly. Has the Democratic candidates' message on Iraq become, in essence, "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?"