Americans operate under an illusion that the people they elect are smart and desirous of implementing the kind of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and so we're shocked when Republicans spend like Democrats and Democrats act like traitors, although I would argue that because of the way Republicans governed, they are just as much traitors to the cause as are the enemy-aiding Democrats.
But at least the Republicans (and now maybe some Democrats) understand the importance of persevering in Iraq, and rational people can grasp how much easier the task would be if both parties were united in the war against terrorism. As one reader of Taranto's Best of the Web wrote recently, it's a zero-sum game in that disunity aids the enemy, and the more the disunity, the greater the aid.
It appears that we finally have the right man for the job in Iraq, and that he's bolder, braver and smarter than any of us armchair generals. So if you're interested, Ralph Peters provides the details.
Can Iraq get there, after all its recent travails and struggling under the weight of history? Petraeus insists that "we're realistic." He believes that Iraq has a fighting chance. But he refuses to predict miracles. That said, the general himself looks like the miracle Iraq needed. If that country ultimately fails – if Iraqis fail themselves – it won't be the fault of David Petraeus and our men and women in uniform.