Observations

Very interesting analysis of the events of the past week...

Political Surge (Wall Street Journal)
Look who won Petraeus week.
BY KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Friday, September 14, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Had anyone suggested six weeks ago that the GOP would emerge from the Petraeus hearings on the political front-foot, they'd have been laughed at all the way to Anbar. There's a lesson here for Republicans, in particular those most worried about how Iraq will play in next year's elections: Good military policy is good politics.

That wisdom was a hard sell this spring, when the news out of Iraq was glum, the war supplemental debate raged, and dozens of Republicans were threatening to call it quits. The White House instead made an impassioned plea that the party hold tight through the summer and let Gen. David Petraeus do what they'd sent him to Iraq to do. Sen. Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner were subject to endless moaning and fretting and even a few senatorial mini-defections, but for the most part succeeded in keeping their political troops in formation. In July, when House Democrats forced yet one more vote on Iraq withdrawal, only four Republicans joined the other side.

And slowly, slowly began a trickle of good news: fewer car and suicide bombings here; fewer violent civilian deaths there; Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar and elsewhere who had joined with the U.S. against al Qaeda. These good tidings, and many more, were confirmed this week, as Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker assured the U.S. public that Iraq really is making strides both militarily and politically, and that the U.S. still very much has the opportunity to deliver victory.

The military commander also went out of his way to explain that it was entirely because of the U.S.'s growing strength on the military front, that we might now begin to talk about limited force withdrawals. This is what the vast number of Americans have been aching to hear--not talk of a dishonorable cut-and-run--and polls show they are increasingly willing to grant Gen. Petraeus, and by extension the Bush administration, more time to build on this success.

In short, the war is in a better place, and by extension those politicians who have supported the war are in a better place. The most obvious winners are congressional Republicans. The pressure they had faced to join with Democrats on withdrawal deadlines has now ebbed, primarily because Gen. Petraeus is himself advocating bringing troops back home--and from a position of strength. Those members who have fought the hardest for a principled stand in Iraq, say Sen. Joe Lieberman, are looking smarter, and will be able to tackle upcoming legislative battles--over the defense budget and a later war supplemental--with renewed firepower. One senior House staffer reports that some amazed Republicans are even allowing themselves to hope--should the upcoming months deliver as much positive news as the preceding few--that Iraq might be a "second tier" issue come the election.

The White House, for its part, has cracked itself a small opening to recoup some credibility on the war, and potentially revitalize what's left of its tenure. Few things are more dangerous than a weak presidency, in particular when it comes to foreign policy. A stronger President Bush in Iraq will hopefully mean a stronger President Bush on the growing regional threats of Iran and Syria. Continued good news also wouldn't hurt the administration's case on domestic security battles, say wiretapping or Guantanamo.

Then there are those Republicans who'd like to have Mr. Bush's job. Sen. John McCain stands to get the biggest bump, and his team is already noting that it was the Arizonan who for "four years" "consistently advocated for a new strategy in Iraq"--meaning, of the sort today yielding success. But in general, Gen. Petraeus's testimony has given other GOP candidates, in particular Rudy Giuliani, a chance to remind voters that he's stood for success in Iraq all along and that his Democratic opponents haven't.

Speaking of Democrats, they've conversely had a bitter taste of the perils of investing their political fortunes in military failure. Their decision to throw in with the antiwar left has left them with nowhere to go now that the better news is rolling in. That much has been obvious by the speed with which they've been blowing through new political strategies--each one less convincing than the one before.

The grand plan this summer was to claim the surge was a failure, no matter what Gen. Petraeus said. But then even some in their own party started returning from congressional trips to Iraq to report progress. Next up was to say that military success mattered little, given the lack of political progress. That became harder as reports surfaced of some political reconciliation. A final, desperate ploy in the past week was to besmirch the honor of a respected general, suggest he had "cherry picked" data and was a puppet of the Bush administration. That went over like an IED with the public.

Don't think it hasn't occurred to Democratic presidential contenders that their political terrain is also shifting, and uncomfortably. The likely effect of the Petraeus report is to buy the Bush administration another six or nine months in Iraq. Even if the general feels confident enough to follow through on his initial withdrawal proposals, an estimated 130,000 U.S. troops will remain on Iraqi soil come next summer or fall. Should the Democrats win the White House, those troops will be their responsibility. And they'll also take the blame if they cave to a politically motivated withdrawal that results in an Iraq that descends back into chaos. This unpalatable thought helps explain the bombs Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were lobbing at Gen. Petraeus this week.

Republicans would do well to absorb the military-success lesson, and quickly, because big challenges remain. The John Warners and Chuck Hagels of the world aren't yet ready to relinquish their self-proclaimed roles as "brave" GOP war dissenters; expect them to team up with Democrats on creative legislative language that might yet tie the military's hands. An even bigger challenge for Republicans will be to find the courage to follow President Bush's lead and make clear to the American public that true success in Iraq may involve a troop presence for many years.

That sort of public acceptance will be crucial if Republicans hope to weather Iraq next year. Yet that acceptance will only come if Americans continue to see success. That means giving the generals all the freedom they need to keep doing their job. Good policy, good politics.

Ms. Strassel is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board, based in Washington. Her column appears Fridays.