Every now and then, you just have to review where you are, and the editors at NRO oblige.

David Bonior has a problem with the surge — it’s had some success. The campaign manager for John Edwards slammed Hillary Clinton for telling the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention that “we’ve begun to change our tactics in Iraq and in some areas, particularly in al Anbar province, it’s working.” Bonior called on Sen. Clinton to “reconsider her ill-advised statement and reaffirm her dedication to using Congress’ constitutional funding power to end this war.” Bonior himself, however, notes “our military’s hard-won progress in al-Anbar province.

Bonior’s position appears to be that admitting that the surge is working should be avoided as much as possible, lest it increase political support for the war. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “It’s difficult to say positive things in this environment and not have some snarky apologist for the White House turn it into clipped phraseology that looks like support for the president’s policies.” Better, then, to ignore all progress?

Just like the religious cults predicting doomsday or the coming of a Messiah, the failure of prophecy forces them into "right-thinking", ever more "right-speaking" and of course the recitation of mindless ditties--i.e. "...there is no military solution for Iraq"

There is of course, no exclusive military solution for Iraq, but no one has proposed a solely military solution--it is a rhetorical strawman--one that allows the Democrats to avoid a real discussion.

The reality is that Democrats opposed the Surge--opposed a successful strategy, not because they preferred another strategy, but because they simply and unalterably want to leave Iraq regardless of the circumstances or the outcomes.

This is too simplistic. The surge has failed to enable legislative progress on the part of the central government (i.e., the benchmarks), but important political progress has been taking place in Iraq. The turn of the Sunni tribes away from al Qaeda and toward us is a crucial political development. If anyone had thought this was possible at the beginning of the year (it wasn’t even mentioned in the January 2007 NIE), it might have been included as a benchmark and considered the most important one. Are we really supposed to discount this political progress because it happened in a manner and on a timetable that no one would have predicted?

This is the achilles heel of Crat polemic--the embrace of "tribe Ameriki" by the Sunnis, as Michael Yon reports the dynamic from inside Iraq, is not military--its political, and political in the most significant way possible--a grassroots shift to a new paradigm. To put it as clearly as I can: Before the Surge, we were a military force in Iraq, now we are a political force in Iraq.

The Democrats’ counsel of despair would only make sense if we had sent another 30,000 troops to Iraq to pursue a new strategy and nothing had come of it. Instead, we have seen results and the NIE forecasts more (“modest”) progress on the military front if we maintain our counter-insurgency operations. We can’t know whether Maliki’s government will ever congeal enough to become effective and whether it will ever pass broad-based reform legislation. But if the violence of 2006 had continued unabated, the Iraqi government might have fallen by now. The Democrats — of all people — shouldn’t forget that Iraq has been traumatized by a civil war; political reconciliation, if it happens, will take time and only happen in an environment of increasing security.

I think our friends at NRO are being a little cautious here--I don't have to be.

We saw how quickly things changed in Anbar province, a region given up for dead only six months previously. The change was provoked by a political and not military dynamic in the region.

The Crats complain about Maliki because the polemic suits their purposes, but the reality is that no political leader can force a consensus where there isn't any. Our own domestic situation is instructive--Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi claimed a mandate, but in fact don't have one, not because of obstructionist Republican Congresspersons, but because of obstructionist Americans. Congresspersons, regardless of party, have spines of jelly--the mood of their constituents dictates their positions--as it should. Taking a position that is unpopular with constituents leads to spending more time with the family. The Crats know this, which is why the lefty-blogs have been hailing the announcements of various Republicans not seeking reelection.

Its no different in Iraq. Iraqis themselves have to want cooperation between Shia and Sunni. We are starting to see this, and its so obvious the even Crat politicians are forced to acknowledge it.

I've not written much about this of late because right now its there literally is no real news to report. Sure, the Crats and the administration are positioning themselves, trying out new polemics, but ultimately there will only be one news story about Iraq in the next few weeks--will the Crats succeed in derailing Iraqi stability by retiring the American political party in Iraq?

I think they will be highly motivated to do so. A successful Iraq is very bad for Democrat political aspirations and worth the lives of a few hundred thousand "wogs" in Iraq. Genocide for profit.

Finally, let's consider that intelligence reports wrote Anbar off last year and they are writing off progress by the Maliki government for the foreseeable future. Career intelligence officers believe they are well-served by pessimism, which is why no one seriously entertained the possibility that Saddam didn't have stockpiles of WMD in reserve---way too optimistic. Yet clearly there is a new dynamic here, one that has transformed regions in Iraq in astonishing ways.

I wouldn't bet against that dynamic producing some surprising results within the central government.