Then, in come the Democrats, and the war policy changed. Rumsfeld was, rightfully and much to my dismay at the time, fired for leading a failed war effort. The president was forced to change his war policy, and Sec. Gates was brought in to clean up the mess. The surge is finally changing the conditions on the ground in Iraq. Gen. Petraeus went from training Iraqi soldiers to managing a failed war effort, and he is beginning to turn the war around.

Obviously, Democrats would have liked nothing better than to end the war effort and bring the troops home. However, this new strategy is a direct result of the Democrats taking Congress. It may not have been the result the Democrats wanted, but it is better than what we had before. If Democrats hadn’t sold their soul to the anti-war left they could take advantage of the success of the surge and claim it as a result of their being elected to office, because it is.

It is yet to be seen how effective the surge will be long term. In the end, the surge may fail and the Democrats would have made the right political move by aligning with the anti-war crowd. However, if the surge succeeds in providing sustainable security in Iraq, in the words of Dem. Rep. James Clyburn, “it would be a problem for us”.

The Democrats may find that they should have taken a lesson from the British House of Commons in 1942. In 1942 the House of Commons narrowly failed a no confidence vote in Winston Churchill. Churchill was driven to appoint Gen Montgomery to lead the war effort. In November 1942 Montgomery defeated Rommel and started to retake Africa. Notice how the opposition party at that time only wanted a new strategy for victory, and not a retreat. Petraeus may turn out to be Republicans white knight, but the Democrats could have owned his success if they hadn’t invested so heavily in opposing the war.