In politics, a few months is an eternity, as they say. The dramatic turnabout in Iraq is a classic illustration.

Earlier this year, congressional Democrats jeered President Bush’s troop surge and the shift to a counterinsurgency strategy as “more of the same.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York proposed a limit on U.S. troop strength and a withdrawal beginning in the summer.

She would have stopped the surge before it could start.

That was only one of several Democratic plans for ending the U.S. commitment. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who flatly declared, “This war is lost,” also pushed a bill that would have forced troop withdrawals around midsummer.

Democrats weren’t alone in writing off Iraq. Even Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, normally a steady hand on national security, discounted the surge even before the full complement of additional troops could arrive in the combat zone.

Since then, the situation on the ground has changed radically.

Anbar province, all but given up for lost in 2006, logged an 82 percent drop in violence between June and September, the Iraqi Interior Ministry said last week. For the country as a whole, violence dropped by 70 percent.

Early last month, the town of Ramadi, once the scene of some of the toughest urban fighting of the war, held a 5K race that drew about 200 participants.

This war is not yet won, not by a long shot. But the last few months have shown beyond a doubt that it is winnable, and the Democrats — with only a few exceptions — have been exposed as defeatists.

If they had rammed through a troop-withdrawal timetable, Iraq would be teetering toward disaster rather than taking the first steps toward reconciliation.

If it were up to me, they’d be forced to prominently wear this sorry record until election day next November. But politics, and human nature, don’t work like that. As one problem seems to subside, something else takes its place.

Iraq probably won’t be decisive next year, although the improving trends — assuming they continue — should help make the political climate more congenial for Republicans.

The odd thing is that despite the obvious rhetorical contrast between the parties, there isn’t a great deal of difference between them, at least right now, on the immediate course of action. The Democratic-led Congress and the White House agree on the main issue: The U.S. mission in Iraq should continue, without troop-withdrawal timetables.

Meanwhile, the leading Democratic presidential contenders also agree: No precipitous withdrawal.

“There hasn’t been a substantive policy change in Congress (on Iraq) since the switch in power between the parties,” said Kansas City political consultant Jeff Roe.

Roe is leading the re-election bid of Rep. Sam Graves, a Republican who faces former Kansas City Mayor Kay Barnes in the race for the 6th District congressional seat in northwest Missouri.

The turnabout in Iraq, says Roe, isn’t likely to determine the outcome of the Barnes-Graves contest, largely because Barnes’ position isn’t appreciably different from Graves’ stance.

“She’s not for immediate withdrawal but she wants to bring the soldiers home,” Roe said.

Of course, that’s what most people want as well. The key difference is that Democrats have made it clear they don’t put a high priority on winning before they pull out the troops.

A visit to Barnes’ campaign Web site didn’t uncover her position on Iraq. But her close adviser, Steve Glorioso, says it’s as follows: Barnes believes we were misled into the war, that the troops weren’t adequately equipped, that there’s a diplomatic way out of the war sooner rather than later, but no — she wouldn’t vote to cut off funding.

While the improving situation in Iraq may not prove decisive, it will be an obvious positive for Republicans.

Next year GOP voters are likely to be much more motivated, especially if the Democratic presidential nominee is Hillary Clinton.

If Republicans are smart, they’ll remind voters repeatedly that if Hillary’s troop-withdrawal plan had prevailed, it would have undoubtedly ensured defeat in Iraq. The success we’re seeing now could not have occurred and something far worse would be festering there.

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/336094.html