July 30, 2007
"Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." -Micheal O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, New York Times op-ed contributors
Two prominent critics of the Iraq war have returned from Iraq telling a story not exactly in line with the script from which Harry Reid, Russ Feingold, and most Democrats have been reading from lately. Essentially, O'Hanlon and Pollack demonstrate that the surge is starting to show signs of success. While conceding that the political situation is far from stable, the article raises the question of: If we start to see clear signs of improvement from Iraq, should we possibly reconsider the knee jerk desire to cut & run? Speaking of cut & run, Harry Reid, arguably the worst Senate majority leader in history, declared several weeks ago that 'the Surge' in Iraq had failed before it had even been fully implemented. This is just one recent example of what has become painfully obvious at this point, that is: Harry Reid and others who agree with him are deeply invested in America's defeat in Iraq. With the release of this New York Times op-ed found here, perhaps we have reason to believe that Harry Reid's and the Democrats' worst nightmare may be realized: that we might prevail in Iraq.