Do Democrats have the courage to listen?

John McCain and Joe Lieberman:

Today, Gen. David Petraeus--commander of our forces in Iraq--returns to Washington to report on the war in Iraq and the new counterinsurgency strategy he has been implementing there. We hope that opponents of the war in Congress will listen carefully to the evidence that the U.S. military is at last making real and significant progress in its offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq.

Consider how the situation has changed. A year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq controlled large swaths of the country's territory. Today it is being driven out of its former strongholds in Anbar and Diyala provinces by the surge in U.S. forces and those of our Iraqi allies. A year ago, sectarian violence was spiraling out of control in Iraq, fanned by al Qaeda. Today civilian murders in Baghdad are down over 50%.

As facts on the ground in Iraq have improved, some critics of the war have changed their stance. As Democratic Congress man Brian Baird, who voted against the invasion of Iraq, recently wrote after returning from Baghdad: "[T]he people, strategies, and facts on the ground have changed for the better, and those changes justify changing our position on what should be done."

Unfortunately, many more antiwar advocates continue to press for withdrawal. Confronted by undeniable evidence of gains against al Qaeda in Iraq, they acknowledge progress but have seized on the performance of the Iraqi government to justify stripping Gen. Petraeus of troops and derailing his strategy.

This reasoning is flawed for several reasons.

First, whatever you think of the performance of Iraq's national leaders, the notion that withdrawing U.S. troops will "shock" them into reconciliation is unsupported by evidence or experience. On the contrary, ordering a retreat will only serve to unravel the hard-fought gains we have won.

The recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq was unequivocal on this point: "Changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role"--the Petraeus strategy--"to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations"--which most congressional Democrats have been pressing for--"would erode security gains achieved thus far."

This judgment is echoed by our commanders on the ground. Consider the words of Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, who is leading the fight in central Iraq: "In my battlespace right now, if soldiers were to leave . . . having fought hard for that terrain, having denied the enemy their sanctuaries, what happens is, the enemy would come back."

...

The strategy suggested by the Democrats would lead to higher casualties for both our troops and for Iraqi non combatants, because it would give the enemy the freedom of movement we have been denying him. He would reestablish sanctuaries and rebuild his efforts at mass murder of non combatants.

The fact is we have already tried the Democrats strategy prior to the surge. The Iraqi troops need our presence and assistance in order to effective control space and the benefit of the surge is lower casualties for everyone but the enemy. The strategy being pushed by the Democrats is a return to the whack-a-mole strategy of the past. The only thing worse would be a complete withdrawal.

As for putting pressure on Iraq politicians, that is being done by the grass roots reconciliation that is taking place because of the surge. This grass roots movement will have a profound effect if it is given a chance to mature and Iraqi politicians who do not heed its message will lose the next election. Politicians who refuse to give them the time to make those changes have an agenda that is not consistent with victory in this war.