So What Happens When The Surge Works?

Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza pen a fascinating article for the Washington Post (link) that poses the question: What happens when Petreaus comes back in September and says that the surge is working?

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party's efforts to press for a timetable to end the war.

Clyburn, in an interview with the washingtonpost.com video program PostTalk, said Democrats might be wise to wait for the Petraeus report, scheduled to be delivered in September, before charting next steps in their year-long struggle with President Bush over the direction of U.S. strategy.

Clyburn noted that Petraeus carries significant weight among the 47 members of the Blue Dog caucus in the House, a group of moderate to conservative Democrats. Without their support, he said, Democratic leaders would find it virtually impossible to pass legislation setting a timetable for withdrawal.

"I think there would be enough support in that group to want to stay the course and if the Republicans were to stay united as they have been, then it would be a problem for us," Clyburn said. "We, by and large, would be wise to wait on the report."

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."

Minority Leader, my Congressman and a Great American -- John Boehner -- had this to say in response (via email):

“These comments are hardly surprising given the majority’s track record of ignoring the facts on the ground in Iraq when they don’t suit its partisan political objectives. We’re hearing very positive reports from our commanders in the field, and by all accounts security is improving each day. That’s what the surge was intended to do: provide greater security to allow the political process the time it needs to work.

“As Republicans have stated repeatedly, General Petraeus and our troops deserve the full and unfettered support of the Congress as they engage al Qaeda in Iraq in this new offensive known as Operation Phantom Thunder. Anything short of that, including partisan stunts in Washington with politicians posing as military planners, is a disservice to them and their mission.”

Not only should the Democrats in Congress realize that things are not all doom and gloom in Iraq, the 527 media ought to get on board as well. Part of why the American people have been led astray about the situation in Iraq has been the dreadful and highly biased reporting coming out of Iraq. The embedded bloggers have been doing the work that American journalists aren't willing to do: Telling the stories of what is actually happening over there. The 527 media's portrayal of Iraq is not doing Democrats the favor that they think they are...

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Kenneth Pollack, the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, both just returned from Iraq. They penned an op-ed in the New York Times yesterday about the successes they saw on the ground in Iraq. More of this sort of thing is in order, not because it helps President Bush or Republicans; but because it illustrates the truth that America is winning this war.

Back to the politics... Clyburn says this in the WaPo article: "People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don't feel real good about the Congress itself." Uh-huh. I recall hearing similar proclamations coming from GOP leadership not that terribly long ago too. How'd that work out for Republicans again?

Meanwhile, we have Democrats throwing temper tantrums and walking out of Iraq briefings. Why? Because they are too positive. Rep. Boyda (D-KS) is trying to defend her childishness but is digging a deeper hole if you ask me. Here is how Sam Hananel reports it for the Associated Press:

"There was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while," Boyda said after she returned, according to a transcript of the hearing. "So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things — after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S. forces "are on the offensive and we have the momentum." He also said security has improved in every neighborhood and district in and around Baghdad, and that "cafes, pool halls, coffee houses that I visited are full of people."

When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane's description of Iraq "as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation — things are going so well — those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, 'Here's the reality of the problem.' "

Ken Spain, a spokesman for the NRCC fires back, "Clearly Representative Boyda believes that only the 'bad' news about Iraq should be reported."

Boyda defeated Jim Ryun in 2006 in what is a fairly conservative district. How will Boyda's anti-war views play back home? That is the question, isn't it.

UPDATE: BizzyBlog has more on the Boyda walkout and the media non-coverage.