The political chorus of self-serving explanations as to why the surge is working continues.  The recitation from the opposition holds that the impending removal of troops and political support echoed by the Democratic candidates is forcing the Iraqi Government to “get on with it”.

This position is weak at a number of levels.  In the first case the Iraqi Government has been getting on with it: Oil revenues are being distributed, a deal to bring Baath Party members back into the government has been completed, perhaps the most capable of the Iraqi ministers, Mr. Chalabi has been placed in charge of reconstruction and has attacked the issues with energy, passion and skill. 

In the second case its spin without substance.  Having crawled out on the anti-war tree branch demanded by the left Democrats invested their political capital in the belief that we would fail in Iraq and failure in Iraq was the clear path to the White House.  There have been a significant number of Democratic position modifications over time.  During the debate in October, the candidates were essentially saying that it would take their entire first term in office to get all the troops out of Iraq.  A position significantly different from the prior position(s) of “get out now, get out in six months, get out in (fill in the blank)__________”position!  As of last night’s debate, we are back to the get out in______________ position to reinforce the message to the Iraqi Government that when a Democratic President is elected the famous “time line” will be imposed.    

However, all of that belies the most meaningful dynamic in Iraq.  The surge is working as a grassroots effort; the strategic context is supported by successful tactics.  American commanders are creating the opportunity for Iraqis to organize neighborhoods, provide intelligence; they are employing Iraqis, working with local tribal leaders, paying attention to religious leaders, demonstrating where the self-interest in security truly lies, showing respect and clearly receiving it in return.

Neighborhoods in Baghdad that were controlled by gangs six months ago have seen a 90% reduction in violence.  Where a template for action has worked its being repeated, small successes building on small successes.  A classic application of an effective counter-insurgency strategy: support, presence and self-interest.

Why make this point?  Because if democratic institutions and values are going to grow it will be the Iraqi people who will demand the necessary accountability from the central government.  The groundwork for that dynamic is clearly being put in place. The fact is, however, that grassroots efforts take time to mature.  The surge is clearly working from two directions, bottom up and top down.

I contend that the bottom up successes will be the more critical and effective of the two.  Progress in the neighborhoods will eventually deliver that message that progress must also occur in Baghdad.  Politicians are politicians everywhere and the message will get through to Baghdad with the resultant scramble to catch up with the people. 

 American commanders have applied General Petraeus’s strategy brilliantly.  The Iraqis are coming to a common sense analysis of where their self-interest lies and who can help get them there.  Average Iraqis have come to understand that the change in American strategy is as much a change in attitude toward them as it is a change in tactics.

Questions present themselves for the Democrats; what timeline will you put on the dynamics of the bottom up political reconciliation, which is so clearly evolving? How much progress is real progress and what set of metrics will motivate yet another change in position?  What if your political investment in failure is faced with American/Iraqi “victory” in Iraq? 

Are you too far out on the tree branch to crawl back?  What if the branch breaks and the two dynamics of reconciliation meet in the middle with a predictable burst of progress?  What if the violence continues to dissipate?  What if the trend of Iraqi leadership in providing security improves geometrically?  What if a couple of key players in the Middle East decide to get on the U.S. bandwagon?  What if regional fears about Iran coalesce into a decision that the U.S. is clearly the lesser of the evils and it might be a good idea to keep them around?

All of these likelihoods and questions represent a significant political trap for the Democratic candidates.  A trap set, not by the hated President Bush or the Republicans but by the Democrats themselves for themselves.  

The assumption that the static conditions in Iraq of a year ago would simply continue defy the laws of political and military motion.  Was it wise to assume a beleaguered President would simply hold on to a failing strategy, or give up? Democrats demanded “change” and they got it, the surge.  Granted, the surge was not the change they were looking for but “change” it was.

Recent public opinion polls, despite the litany of assumed failure by the political class and the media’s reluctant agreement to report progress are evidence that the American people can be moved by success.  Assuming continued success American voters can also be moved to wonder if, maybe, such a significant investment in failure was not such good leadership judgment after all.