Rich Lowry writes much better than I could exactly what I think about these new noises in Congress about drawing down our troops in Iraq just at the moment when we have strong indications that it is beginning to work.

America good! Al-Qaida bad! — A trader in the Qatana bazaar, Ramadi, Iraq


This is a sentiment that the Iraqi trader felt safe to utter as a visiting U.S. general passed by, according to John Burns of the New York Times, only after a furtive glance “up and down the narrow refuse-strewn street to check who might be listening.” In a microcosm, this is the reason why we are finally making progress against al Qaeda in Iraq. The protection afforded by American combat power has made it possible for Iraqis in Sunni areas to turn against the terror group.

In a global struggle against Islamic extremism, it is an incontestably welcome development that ordinary Sunnis in the Arab heartland are spurning al Qaeda. The extremist group has been on a campaign of savagery in Iraq that has discredited its own cause. The grassroots revolt against it means that it is within our reach to deny al Qaeda its most important current geopolitical objective, which is plunging Iraq into a bloody chaos in which it can thrive.

But a group of Republican senators have picked precisely this moment to call for deconstructing the troop surge that has begun to give us the upper hand against al Qaeda. They thus reveal a key dishonesty in the debate over the war. Everyone professes to want to fight al Qaeda in Iraq — as opposed to policing the sectarian war — but the number of politicians willing to support the means to that end is ever-dwindling.

Al Qaeda relies on intimidation to impose itself on the Sunni community, and succeeds unless driven back by a stronger force, i.e. the U.S. military. In his report from Anbar province, John Burns notes that the Sunni “sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put al-Qaida groups on the run.” He continues, “Iraqis, bludgeoned for 24 years by Saddam Hussein’s terror, are wary of rising against any force however brutal, until it is in retreat.”

This experience has been replicated in precincts of Baghdad, Diyala, province and other Sunni parts of Iraq, but the Republican senators want American forces, rather than al Qaeda, to do the retreating. Advocates of various forms of withdrawal argue that we can fight al Qaeda from our large bases or from Kurdistan. This is a fantasy that ignores that we are waging a counterinsurgency war against al Qaeda that requires on-the-ground relationships with key players and knowledge of the terrain.

And the main “compromise” proposal — adopting the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — would have all American combat troops out of Iraq by the end of March 2008. It is self-evidently impossible to fight al Qaeda in Iraq without any combat troops to do it. What all those abandoning the surge essentially want is a return to the old failed Rumsfeld strategy of prematurely drawing down and handing over to unprepared Iraqi forces.

For quite a time after the initial stage of combat against Saddam Hussein in Iraq we followed a policy that turned out to be wrong - trying to draw down our troops while training Iraqi forces to take over. This was the Rumsfeld formulation of standing down as they stood up. It didn't work and in the meantime Al Qaeda and other groups were able to build up safe havens around Baghdad and other areas by terrorizing the local populations. We didn't have the manpower or the staying power to stop that from happening.

Well, now we have a different strategy, and yes there is a big difference between what we are doing now under General Petraeus and what we were doing before he took over. And he's only had the full forces there in Iraq since mid-June. And as so many observers from John Burns of the New York Times to Kimberly Kagan today in the Wall Street Journal have been to Iraq and seen the successes.

In Washington perception is often mistaken for reality. And as Congress prepares for a fresh debate on Iraq, the perception many members have is that the new strategy has already failed.

This isn't an accurate reflection of what is happening on the ground, as I saw during my visit to Iraq in May. Reports from the field show that remarkable progress is being made. Violence in Baghdad and Anbar Province is down dramatically, grassroots political movements have begun in the Sunni Arab community, and American and Iraqi forces are clearing al Qaeda fighters and Shiite militias out of long-established bases around the country.

This is remarkable because the military operation that is making these changes possible only began in full strength on June 15. To say that the surge is failing is absurd. Instead Congress should be asking this question: Can the current progress continue?

But already the "get out now" forces on Capitol Hill are ready to return to the strategy from 2004-6 that earned so much derision and was a failure. How ironic that we can be succeeding on the battlefield in Iraq yet losing on the political battlefield.