And what is the reaction of the war critics? Nancy Pelosi stoutly maintains her state of denial, saying this about the war just two weeks ago: "This is not working. . . . We must reverse it." A euphemism for "abandon the field," which is what every Democratic presidential candidate is promising, with variations only in how precipitous to make the retreat.
How do they avoid acknowledging the realities on the ground? By asserting that we have not achieved political benchmarks -- mostly legislative actions by the Baghdad government -- that were set months ago. And that these benchmarks are paramount. And that all the current progress is ultimately vitiated by the absence of centrally legislated national reconciliation.
In the absence of success at the grass roots level, progress in the center would have imposed some type of reconciliation from the top. Had that happened, we'd be debating the relevance of leaders in the Green Zone being able to impose peace on their still-angry followers and questioning how deep reconciliation really was.
Mostly, this episode shows the folly of Congress trying to run a war. Congress institutionally believes no problem can't be solved by a new law. That's their job. So naturally they want to legislate solutions to every problem they assume authority for solving.
Congress compounded this outlook by misunderstanding the truism that insurgencies are not mostly a military problem but a political problem. This is true, but military action is still crucial. And the conflict is still a war despite needing political means as the primary weapon.
So Congress, having decided we aren't going to win in Iraq, naturally looked to legislation to solve the problem--either Iraqi laws to win or our laws to surrender.
We are winning in Iraq without the Iraqi laws Congress wanted and will finish the victory if Congress will refrain from enacting U. S. laws that insist on our defeat.
Not every problem is a statutory shortcoming. So not every solution is a bill.
