The senator has an Op-Ed in today's Wall Street Journal that's a must-read:
I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.
The question of course is--is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.
In Baghdad, however, discussions with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight are more balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus--fixated not just on the headline or loss of the day, but on the larger stakes in this struggle, beginning with who our enemies are in Iraq. The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.
Go read the whole thing. I don't know how the Dems can argue against this line of thinking...any retreat from Iraq is a victory for al Qaeda. The candidates can complain about the mistakes that have been made by this administration, but that doesn't change the fact that defeat would be a completely unacceptable outcome. And they can say 'the war is lost' already, but that is patently false. Look at the reaction to the most recent attack on the al-Askari mosque--even the Times conceded that U.S. forces "appeared to have headed off the risk of a new sectarian convulsion." We failed to do just that after the first attack in 2006. Things are getting better, even if it comes in fits and starts.
Update: A little research turns up this quote from Harry Reid. Upon returning from his most recent trip to Iraq, in 2005, the senator had this to say:
"I came away with the feeling that we cannot leave Iraq," said Reid, one of seven Senate Democrats and Republicans on a weeklong trip through the Middle East and several countries near the troubled region. "If we do, the terrorists will have won."
And what's changed between then and now, senator?
