So the defeatist liberal press is no longer predicting disaster in Iraq, no doubt due to the stern discipline they have received from the Right-wing blogosphere, right? Bullshit. The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. First, the press has bigger fish to fry now, with the elections, and the litany of disasters in Mesopotamia has attenuated somewhat now that Rummy is gone, Cheney muzzled and a new Plan and military/diplomatic leadership is in place. I just wonder why the Democrats haven't taken more credit for the successes in Iraq, a prospect which I know will precipitate mass internal flatulence amongst the Right side of this board. To be fair, the Left did not turn this war around, they just got the Right to stop stepping on their dick long enough for the professionals to take over. If this had happened in 2003 instead of 2006 Iraq would be ancient history by now, and no one would be complaining.

Well, it can't be denied, the tactical news from Iraq has been good, and it is pretty clear the bad guys are taking casualties, on the run and scurrying for cover. But, as always, the strategic picture is still unclear. Is the puppet government we've set up able to function with a reduced American presence? Have the Iranians been countered successfully in the region? Do we have the ability to intimidate our enemies and support our friends in the MidEast through our presence there? Is civil war and genocide ruled out? Is Iraqi stability guaranteed? And most important, have we secured our access in perpetuity to Iraqi oil for our own use and to counter oil diplomacy initiatives by our rivals? As far as I can tell, the tactical results are better than we could have hoped for, but the strategic conditions have not improved substantially over the last two years.

Perhaps it must be conceded that we're much, much, closer to achieving these goals than we were when the Bush gang was running amok unsupervised. The Left wouldn't admit it if we were, and the Right would lie through their teeth to try and convince us they were. You will note WMDs, al-Quaida, terrorists, freedom, democracy, elections and Saddam's tyranny have nothing to do with our strategic goals, they are just the excuses we used to make ourselves feel better about invading another country to secure our own geopolitical position.

Still, even this tired old lefty must concede that when faced with religious fanatics willing to martyr themselves for their superstitions, and when they are doing their best to get a firm grip on your petroleum-hungry genitalia, sometimes a little blatant RealPolitik becomes a superpower. The question is, can we do it now? Can we pull it off? Actually, no one knows the answer to that question, what we should really be asking ourselves is "is it worth the risk of trying?" Or is it just too late?

I was originally in favor of this war, then I turned against it. Now I'm ready to change my mind again. My opinion has shifted not due to my ideology, but based on my assessment of whether or not we can win or lose. I'm sorry, but morality has nothing to do with this kind of decision, it should be based solely on blatant self-interest. The decision for our next president should be that by the time he takes office the insurgency should be sufficiently weakened and the puppet government sufficiently strong that a gradual withdrawal on our terms can be carried out with a high probability of success. It is sad that the sheer imcompetence of the current administration and the pathetic excuses and obstructionism of its supporters have conspired to force us into a situation where we only have a few months left to do this. Personally, I'm not sure I'm willing to give it any more than that.