The Democrats can still use certain talking points on Iraq -- at least for now. If they want to play the pessimist card (which seems to be the key to their success), they can point out that political compromise has not followed the drop in violence. Many Democrats and opponents of the war have been quoted along the lines of, "There is no military solution to this problem, only a political one." They need to play this up and debunk the Bush Administration's claim that better security will prompt political reconciliation among Iraq's factions. If the Iraqis do begin to reconcile, their only possible defense is that the threat of troop withdrawals that the new Congress floated prompted Iraqi leaders to get their act together. Otherwise, the Democrats have completely lost their number one issue.

This reminds me very much of myself in early 2004, when I had to balance my enthusiasm for one month's particularly impressive job growth -- a positive and radical change from most previous months -- with the fact that this would help President Bush's re-election chances. I embraced this new job growth for the good of the country. But I also desperately wanted John Kerry in office, for the good of the country. Having been only in the second grade when Bill Clinton sought re-election, I can only imagine what it was like having Republicans weep over a booming economy.

Fearless prediction: Iraq will not be the issue on which the presidential election of 2008 will turn.

That issue will be the economic insecurities of working families, perhaps reflected in the stalking horse issue of our relationship with Mexico (falsely labeled "Immigration").

Come on Marty.

Militarily things are going better, obviously. We have more boots on the ground than ever before, and there are less Iraqis on the ground than ever before (2 million refugees, most mixed neighborhoods already ethnically cleansed and neatly divided), so of course the death tolls are going to be lower.

NONE of the political goals are being met, and the surge has had no positive effect on anything militarily.  You're sounding ridiculous.

WTF?  Are you so invested in your Iraq adventure that you WANT the Republicans to win in 2008?  Just so--I don't know--you can feel vindicated for the way that you and you alone among so-called liberals supported the war?

I agree with tep, Iraq will not be the centerpiece issue of 2008.  So what.  This "Democrats want defeat in Iraq" line is bullshit REPUBLICAN demagoguery.

And talk about diminished expectations: best case scenario, the violence continues to tail off and Iraq is ruled by a pro-Iranian Shiite theocracy.

Marty, of course, crows his standard adolescent claptrap because they haven't found 30 or 40 headless bodies buried under a road lately. Needless to say, this means that Democrats love terrorists.  Only Republicans want people to stop being slaughtered for no reason.

peretz,

This latest screed, hot from the spin room of the Podheretz infested spin room of the Guiliani headquarters, is really insane.

As achester and teppy have stated, first, death tolls are thankfully lower precisely because of the increased military presence.  This is good.  However, as both the Times piece and achester note, still NO progress on the political goals so what, we will have to occupy this country forever, listening to people like you and Bush saying that we need to stay in Iraq if the death rates are up or down or flatlining?  Seems that no matter what the situation, better, worse, or the same, you die harders in Iraq can rationalize your deluded Iraq fantasy any which way.

You should really just declare your intentions. aeromonas hit it on the head: You continue to claw at any development to rationalize your insane and misguided decision to enter this war. Why don't you just declare yourself to all, break with this magazine - which has finally seen the error of its ways in Iraq - and stop, once and for all, masquerading as a liberal or even a Democrat?  I haven't done the numbers but off the top of my head, I cannot even remember the last time you criticized a GOP presidential candidate, on any issue, Iraq or otherwise, You seem to see it as your special job to heap scorn and ridicule - most of it nothing more than the sour teeth grinding of an irrelevant crank - on  Democrats.  

Hey, you can criticize Democrats all you like but declare yourself, old man.  Liberals and Democrats can stand your rather thin critiques.  Just stop pretending to be the conscious or the voice of liberalism.  

So how is that Obama endorsement looking these days?

Here Here Cookie - a fine wallop, old friend.  Marty represents no one.

Does anyone imagine that Iraq will be a faithful and Democratic ally, free of the need for US troops, in 5 years? 10 years? Or must we continue to spend tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars a year to police and maintain Iraq just to ensure that government remains complaint? I can accept the argument of the necessity to do that, in fact I even favor it, but I can not tolerate Republican or right wing gloating in the face of their own previous unbelievable incompetence. We have turned what should have been a fairly minor removal of a poisoned appendix and in the operation nearly killed the patient and messed up the Doctor as well.

Iraq is not a winning issue for the Republicans, if the Republicans claim we are winning then why can't we begin to bring our troops home? So you mean we have to stay forever because if we leave we lose? And that argument is going to be a winner for the Republicans?

Blackie, you're right about the gloating - it should cease immediately.  However, I note that we spend billions to help the governments of South Korea and Bosnia, and further billions stationing thousands in places that need no help at all, namely Germany and Japan.

No, Iraq is not a winner for the GOP, so we'll change the subject to things we can win on.  It's not a winner for the Dems either - see Reid, Harry - so they will do the same.

The Democrats do not grasp that they are in intellectual and moral trouble. They can no longer say that

butchie, one of the differences between Bosnia and South Korea is that our soldiers are not being killed daily. Are you prepared for a generation of the drip, drip, drip of young Americans dying just out of fear that we can not let go of this tiger's tail?

I can accept this, and believe we as a nation must accept it, but we have to be upfront and honest about it. This Bush crew has been about as loathsome of political creatures as I could imagine. Reagan, Papa Bush, etc. realized the value of leaving politics at the nations edge.

and can you imagine what would have happened if the Republicans had tried to use the stationing of troops in these places as a wedge issue with which to win elections? If the Republicans try to use the issue to win, by bashing the Democrats, the next election and if they lose the Democrats will be hard pressed not to withdraw the troops if they win, especially since I forsee a recession on the horizon. I hope Hillary or Obama will resist those calls, to not just declare victory and go home. I honestly don't think either will, that when Bush slithers off cooler heads will prevail and our national interest will be served.

Yes, Blackie, I understand what the future looks like in Iraq.  I suspect there will less dying as we go along.  I also suspect that the Iraqis will come to a modus vivendi in the next 5 or so years, maybe sooner.  Iraq may turn out to be more of a democracy than Russia or Indonesia, say.  In any case, the political situation there is changing from the bottom up, in the provinces, as the Baghdad elites can't seem to figure it out.

If the GOP is smart politically (hah!), the nominee will say as little about Iraq as possible, especially if events continue to move toward a sort of victory for the Iraqi people.  Bashing Dems over the issue is silly, as it opens him up to all sorts of uncomfortable questions.

Most of all, I agree that politics should stop at the waters edge, but since Vietnam that has been a forlorn hope, with plenty of blame to go around.