OP-ED: A War We Just Might Win, By Michael E. O’Hanlon And Kenneth M. Pollack, New York Times, July 30, 2007

As I have stated from the start of the surge: it was (finally) designed to work and it would (is finally) working. Throw enough bodies (with the contractors, we approach Shinseki's desired number) at the problem and we'll get progress with someone as smart as my favorite "monk of war." And yet it's one thing to send just enough to settle the situation, but quite another to realize that, with the rotational strain coming to a head, there's still no question--despite the expected operational success of the surge--that the drawdown and pullback must occur, so the larger issue remains: What have we done diplomatically in the region to adjust to that inevitable pathway? Here the news is far less sanguine: we've done little to nothing, instead teeing up Iran for air strikes that are unlikely to get us what we want in either Iran or Iraq, and with Gaza in shambles, this would likely flare too. So yes, kudos to Petraeus in particular and CENTCOM in general for finally getting the strategy right in Iraq, but it comes so late (blame to Rummy and Cheney) that the strain on our forces dictates the drawdown unfolds no matter what, and with Bush & Co, not prepping the regional security environment at all for this outcome, our current gains are unlikely to be sustainable. Petraeus's "victory" I can define: stabilize Iraq just enough for the drawdown/pullback to unfold with grace on our side and no bloodbath on our heels. We can call this a "loss" or an "aborted victory" if you like, even though none of those terms apply (How do we "win" a war where we are only the biggest of many "tribes" there?). But I've always found calling it "our war" and worrying about our "victory" seemed odd and out of place. It's Iraq's "peace" that's being fought over, and who'll get to control that. Like I wrote in BFA, pretending this "war" is ours to win or lose is like the midwife acting like it's her baby being born. The real question for us strategically is, What role does Iraq play for us in perpetuating and expanding the big bang? Many answers can legitimately flow from the question, and if we just get over this need to declare a "win" (however illusory) in Iraq, we can begin to strategize more clearly. The game is still on: We committed to Iraq to trigger positive regional change (and please, hold your horses on democracy). The only "victory" in Iraq keeps that process alive enough for the next president to do something about it. The only "loss" I fear is the complete shutting down of those potential pathways prior to Bush's departure, and I think ineffective, feel-good strikes against Iran are the shortest route to that undesirable strategic cul-de-sac. So good news to hear and excellent tactical analysis, but we're talking the small stuff here while still ineffectively debating the larger strategic issues, which neither party's candidates are effectively exploring right now, instead filling airwaves with fanciful declarations that we must "end this war now" (as if!) and "stop Iran's quest for nukes!" (ditto).