Not true. This is not the 1970s, when John Kerry could tell the Senate our troops were the problem and Vietnam would be better off without us, with the ensuing massacre largely ignored. Progress and the consequences of leaving cannot be ignored with people like Michael Totten, Bill Ardolino and Michael Yon over there blogging every day.

Every time Obama says “Troops must come home!” an American colonel in Ramadi or Fallujah or Mosul in full battle armor will pause in his combat patrol, wipe his brow in the 110 degree summer heat, point to the Iraqis around him and say “Well, the civilians back home are in charge, but if we leave before this area is secure all these people who are trying to make Iraq a decent place are going to die, and all our work here will have been for nothing.”

We shy from this question, but it is one that Senator McCain should pound in the general election. Of the 50 to 60% of our country that either believe that Iraq was wrong, or at least that they’re uncomfortable with our being in Iraq, my guess is that most are decent, fair-minded, reasonable people who simply haven’t thought through the consequences. It’s not a knock on them; working this out takes time, lots of reading, lots of consideration, and considerable debate. Most of our citizens don’t do that even on the biggest issues of the day.

So it must be made explicit. One needs to ask the reasonable center and center-left: “things in Iraq seem to be going our way for now. We’ve made progress both politically and militarily. The Iraqis seem to be finding their way. In such circumstances, if we withdraw now it will be seen as a humiliation of our country and evidence of our inability to stand fast to our principles. Under those circumstances, do you think it proper to withdraw?”

Variations of this question should be put forward by Mr. McCain, and should be answered. Emphatically. NO, we will not allow the good Iraqis to be slaughtered. NO, there is no need to accommodate the translators in our country, because their home is Iraq, and we’re going to guarantee their homes. NO, we’re not going to let the Mad Mullahs of Iran and the brutish thugs of Syria take Iraq over. NO, we’re not going allow Iraq to become another Vietnam (twist that one back at Senator Obama).

Americans have been ‘educated’ in the past four years that the war in Iraq is both wrong and unwinnable. Mr. McCain, and all who believe that the war is and has been both moral and winnable must make that clear. Who willingly chooses defeat?

If you are a dem, you can pick from a ton of the polling questions from various msm outlets that might advance their argument for how great a bludgeon Iraq would be in the general election.

The only question that is relevant, but never asked:

Do you think the US should abandoned Iraq, regardless of the outcome?

There is one intriguing question hidden among the polling:

“Which comes closer to your view about the war in Iraq? You think the U.S. will definitely win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. will probably win the war in Iraq. You think the U.S. can win the war in Iraq, but you don’t think it will win. OR, You do not think the U.S. can win the war in Iraq.”

Can win in 05? 63-34.
Can win in 12/07? 59-37.

Yes, I want the troops to come home as soon as possible, no, a timetable being set in the next 6 months doesn’t bother me, troop draw down soon sounds good…I’m pretty much in favor of getting out asap, BUT not until victory is assured.

Dems who believe that a message of ‘we are losing and will continue to lose’ risk the same results of 04. The only notable difference between 04 and 08 is that the dem candidate has less foreign policy crediblity with no military experience, and the gop candidate is held in higher regard than ‘w’, augmented by his previous military experience.

I still think the U.S. goal should be to get out. Our presence there can only lead to resentment over time like it has in just about every other Muslim country.

Smart people (in Ledeen’s league) have told me that the domestic political impact of Iraq will be the inverse of 2006, i.e., a bonus for the GOP. Here’s hoping.

Sans helmet or armor, in a city that no longer appears to be a war zone.

A sure sign that victory is imminent is that the Democratic front runner…

Hyperbole alert. I was for this thing in 2002, and have been the whole time since its inception. I didn’t get it when people who were pro-war in the beginning suddenly decided to change their mind when the going got tough and mistakes were made. This war was fought better than WWII, if you’re just going to count strategy and tactical mistakes.

But to say it’s the biggest gamble in the history of the country is a bit of a stretch, I think. At the worst, we’ve still proved that the US of today is not the fainthearted US that pulled out of Somalia and ignored the bombing of the Cole and the 1993 WTC attack, and that will have some deterrence value for present and future enemies. A lot of money and people were spent, but the returns were going to be huge anyway, if intangible.

And if we manage to get Iraq to the point where it even remotely resembles a functioning democracy, the returns will just increase by an order of magnitude or two. It was a win/win from the start.

There is virtually no downside for the Democrats on Iraq. The American people care little about progress and only want the troops to come home.

Even if all were to acknowledge progress on the political front it will be used as an argument that the war is over and the troops should come home. We saw that scenario play out this past weekend in an op-ed at the LA Times.

It’s brazen. It’s maddening. But that’s the way it is. Obama will not suffer politically for anything he has said or done about Iraq.

It’s the right war at the right time. And General Petraeus is a GIANT of our times!

No we aren’t! The Awakening Sunnis in 2 provinces have quit and the Sunnis as a whole will never will accept a Shiite-run central government.

What a brilliant “good cop/bad cop” routine the US has going! With a whack-left Democrat party making Republicans look reasonable, the US can scare all sorts of fence sitters into action now by making noises like we are going to actually give these people the war to run and lose.

What a piece of genious it was to send Mrs Pelosi to call on Syria’s Assad a year ago. That certainly sent a chill down the spine of anyone in the Middle East interested in political freedom and self government. Who actually organized that trip?? Condi??

And now, Obama and Hillary are litterally driving former Iraqi blood enemies into each others arms every time they say they “support our troops”. Who is pulling the strings there??

How ironic it would be to have a Republican elected after all that..

I disagree. You assume that the mainstream media, in an election year no less, are going to be singing the praises of the surge? Fat chance if you ask me. They’ve done a great job of ignoring and downplaying any successes at all over the past five years. What reason to believe that’s going to change now? They will focus on the negative aspects as always. Hell, on the day Saddam’s statue was torn down by cheering Iraqis, we were already hearing about supposedly “looted” museum artifacts by that evening! The tone of coverage is not going to change until a Democrat is in office.

so says Unamerican.

Sorry, those people are called “refugees”. (even if your statistics are suspect, in that they seem to be dated).

The millions who fled their homelands during WWII: were they fleeing war, or civil war?

If the latter in Iraq’s case, just tell us the statistics (you seem to like to cite them) that show that the ever-diminishing violence in Iraq is due to sectarian IRAQI violence (as opposed to the “lets you and they fight” violence fomented by foreign Al Qaedas.

then give current stats about how many refugees are returning.

I suspect you won’t be answering, at least with real hard numbers.

Should we not withdraw in the order that we went in?

Ask this question to the typical brain-dead Democrat, and see them change the subject with great cowardice.

It was predicted way back in May 2006 that 2008 would be the year of victory in Iraq. So it is.

They are concerned that having the Demos in control will change the nature of the political process and debate in Iraq by Hillary’s or Obama’s insistence on “involving” and “sharing” with others in the region. Like Syria, Hamas, Iran, the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, AQI, the Muslim Brotherhood, and elected representatives of the Iraqi “diaspora” around the world of course.

I think the same concern is driving the negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians. IMO.

Twenty percent of the population driven from their homes & unable to return is a state in civil war.
According to the UNHCR 3 days ago -on moving their office from Amman with a staff of 3 upgraded to 5 , the few who had returned are leaving again.

Given that USA can never leave it has to get these people back plus control them.