By Christopher J. Toppings
Electapres Columnist

In Washington, as with most of the country, it has become a maxim equating the troop surge in Iraq to be a failure. To be sure progress has been dreadfully slow and in short supply, but a deeper analysis of the realities leaves room for cautious optimism.

Yesterday, the President released a periodic report mandated by Congress measuring the success of the Iraqi government in meeting benchmarks set by the United States. Never mind the impropriety of a nation setting goals for another sovereign nation, the report found that the Iraqis had fully met eight of the eighteen goals, another eight were unmet and the final two achieved mixed results.

The areas of unsatisfactory progress are amongst the most important facing the future of Iraq: De-Baathification, the sharing of oil revenues, disarming sectarian militias, establishing autonomous military units capable of stabilizing the country and repelling foreign attackers. These are all laudable goals; however, in a democracy – especially a nascent democracy such as Iraq – this will take time. Just for our US Congress to pass a single appropriation bill requires several months of hearings and floor debate and even then there is no guarantee of passage. Notice the postponement of ten appropriations bills from last year. The point is these are routine matters that take extremely long to settle in a mature democracy over two-hundred years old. The Iraqis have been at it for far less time and are debating existential issues that will define the future of their nation. Patience, therefore, is inevitably required.

Moreover, in her assessment this week in the Wall Street Journal, Kimberly Kagan propounds many encouraging facts. First, many local Sunni leaders in Anbar province are turning against the insurgency and providing vital facts and tips to our soldiers. Many have cited increased comfort with our soldiers and reassurance we are there to help as reasons for this assistance. Further, Kagan states:

“U.S. and Iraqi forces are operating east of Baghdad for the first time in years, disrupting al Qaeda's movement between bases on the Tigris and in Sadr City, a frequent target of its car bombs. North of Baghdad, U.S. forces recently cleared al Qaeda from the city of Baqubah, from which terrorists flowed into Baghdad. They are clearing al Qaeda's car bomb factories from Karmah, northwest of Baghdad, and its sanctuaries toward Lake Tharthar. These operations are supported by counterinsurgency operations west of the capital, from Fallujah to Abu Ghraib. U.S. forces are now, for the first time, fighting the enemy in the entire ring of cities and villages around Baghdad.”

These are significant developments. The “surge” is not only an increase in personnel, though that was a major ingredient, but a retargeting of assets and focused approach toward clearing out the enemy. Although this intense operation will invariably yield higher casualties, it is, by all accounts, draining the pool of insurgents from their heretofore safe zones.

I am no fan of anecdotal evidence when assessing something as dynamic and unpredictable as war. A war against fanatics no less. This week, however, I received word from a personal friend serving in Baghdad that shed light on the troop surge and its prospects for success:

“All this blood spilled and effort over here needs to be seen through. I am afraid to think of them setting a deadline…even cutting funding will cripple us. Chris, this troop surge is working. We are all over these dudes. They are backed into a corner in our area and are still swinging away pretty good but we are dragging them to jail or killing them 10 at a time.”

I explicitly trust the judgment and sober assessments of this soldier. This is the first email, in nearly a year of him serving, that he has given anything resembling an optimistic view of our military operations in Iraq.

From a 30,000 foot view, failure in Iraq cannot be an option for the United States. Those today who are calling for withdrawal are using the template of politicians who said Cambodia would never be as horrific as “doomsdayers” claimed. Millions slaughtered and “re-educated” later, and we know the naiveté of that view. Iraq, as national security experts, leaders in the Muslim world, brave politicians like Senators Lieberman and McCain and many more, will be no different should we leave.

To leave or, indeed, to telegraph exodus from Iraq would be tantamount to surrendering the United States’ position as the world’s political and military leader. With few exceptions our military has been unable to wage war in Iraq without the full backing of political leaders.