Democrats and war opponents have for months argued for a withdrawal from Iraq, partly on the grounds that neither the people of Iraq nor its government would seriously attempt reconciliation so long as the U.S. commitment there seemed open-ended. Some Democrats went so far as to say that by insisting on a date-certain for withdrawal, they were helping the administration by playing ‘bad cop’ to President Bush’s ‘good cop.’ If the Iraqis believed that Congress might really force a withdrawal, the argument went, they would press for reconciliation with more urgency. Well, the central story from Iraq today (even if it only made page nine of the Washington Post) is the agreement in principle on oil revenue sharing, federalism, and de-baathification:
Given the timing — just a few weeks before Congress is expected to review the White House report on progress on benchmarks and receive the testimony of General Petraeus on the state of Iraq — Democrats might at least attempt to argue that they were right. But they aren’t — because that would require an admission of progress, which might justify a continued commitment to Iraq. Democrats would prefer to argue that nothing has changed. Or worse — some seem to be arguing that General Petraeus has an almost Jedi-like power over the weak-minded — like Congressman Jerry McNerney:
Congresswoman Schakowsky presents a favorable contrast according to the Huffington Post, because in her brief tour of Iraq, she was able to view all of General Petraeus’ presentation and come away with her mind unchanged. She was convinced of the necessity of a prompt withdrawal before her visit, and nothing she heard or saw was able to change her mind. And if nothing else, it does require extraordinary mental discipline to look at changed circumstances and not for a second consider whether they should cause a change in one’s opinion.
