Remember the Democrat rationale for withdrawal?

Jonathon Gurwitz:

...

... The presence of American troops was the destabilizing source of Iraq's deplorable security situation. The insurgency was the understandable homegrown response to military occupation. The surge would, therefore, only make matters worse by increasing instability and stoking the insurgency.

You don't hear rational people propound these theories anymore, and not only because of the obvious inability of its advocates to explain why they applied to Iraq but not to Afghanistan. You don't hear them because the facts on the ground have proven them to be utterly wrong — a dramatic drop in civilian and coalition casualties, the dramatic rebellion of Sunni tribes in Anbar and Diyala provinces against al-Qaida extremists and their alliance with U.S. forces against foreign jihadists.

Which is perhaps the best explanation for why Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards won't make a pledge to get the United States out of Iraq by the end of 2013, let alone in 180 days. And it's why a reader can be surprised to discover under the headline "Pentagon misstates sniper data in $1.4B request" that sniper attacks in Iraq have fallen dramatically in the last four months.

...

Republicans better be doing their YouTube sound bite searches for Democrats making their case for retreat and defeat so we can remind voters just how wrong these guys have been and how close they were to handing al Qaeda a victory that it had not earned. The Democrats bet against a US victory and if there is justice in this world, they should have to pay a price for that.