mark your calendars

The New York Times concedes some ground on Iraq (in an otherwise pissy editorial):

[I]n recent months there has been some tentative progress in Iraq. American and Iraqi casualties have declined, and there are signs that the central government is beginning to assert its authority against Shiite militias in Basra and Sadr City and against allies of Al Qaeda in Mosul.

I am made extremely nervous by anyone who would start crowing about “success” in Iraq (though I understand John McCain’s jumping all over anything positive to come out of the war—and particularly the surge, which, as Jennifer Rubin notes, he patted himself on the back for [emphasis in her original]:

And on Iraq:

Well, we are succeeding. We are winning. The three major cities are now under Iraqi military government control, with our support. Senator Obama incredibly refuses to acknowledge the success. It’s remarkable. Maybe he should sit down with General Petraeus which he has not sought the opportunity to do so far, or maybe even go back to Iraq, which he has not since the surge began. We are succeeding. And that success means we will be able to withdraw over time, gaged by conditions on the ground. . . And we will come home in victory and honor and not in defeat. That is what this choice is going to be about in this election. I said a year ago, over a year ago, I would rather lose a campaign than lose a war. I was right about the surge. Senator Obama was wrong about the surge. [The] American people [can] make an appropriate judgment.

Rubin also reported on a very interesting talk at Brookings by Ken Pollack and Michael O’Hanlon:

O’Hanlon explained that the last three months has been the “spring of the blossoming of Iraqi security forces” and Iraq is on an “impressive trajectory” although we have not yet “reached a stable end point.” He stressed that the 80% reduction in civilian violence was much better than he thought possible. He went through a detailed review of Basra, conceding that Maliki’s actions took the Americans by surprise and that in the first week things went poorly. However, by the second week two brigades were deployed from Al Anbar ( a testimony to massive improvements in Iraq security force logistics) and the mission was successful, allowing the Iraqi army and national police force to now control the streets of Basra.

Pollack echoed these observations, saying that “The headline was the emergence of Iraqi security forces.” He explained that the fundamental shift from Americans leading with Iraqis in support to Iraqis leading not just “hold” but “clear” operations is now “well underway.” He observes that sectarian divisions within the military are receding as mixed Sunni and Shia units have been successful in Basra and Mosul operations. He sees vast improvement in military leadership which “is one of the main reasons for improvement” in the security situation. He credits the military success with allowing for a “fundamental rearrangement” of Iraqi politics, observing that Maliki is now “flying high” with new found respect from Sunnis. The big picture take away, he says, it that having achieved remarkable success with major issues we now can begin to address “second and third order problems” such as insuring that military forces “stay in their lane” and do not subvert civilian leadership.

Pollack and O’Hanlon counsel against hasty withdrawal, but according to Rubin, they were polite in offering Dems a way to save face, and save themselves from “defeatist” branding:

Both indicated that it would be a mistake with critical provincial and national elections upcoming in 2008 and 2009 to begin an abrupt withdrawal in 2009. O’Hanlon offered that Democrats could take credit for having pressured Iraqis on a political front with the clear message that our presence would not be indefinite and that they should accept that “the good news is you may be able to leave earlier than proposed based on progress and not on defeat.”

We’ll see how this goes over when the blogosphere catches wind of this fairly optimistic picture. The last time Pollack and O’Hanlon stuck out their necks, they were called tools—and much worse.