Why the blind rush?

Lately, there's been such a hurry to try to drum up legislative support for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, regardless of the civilian causalities that would result, in advance of both the July and September progress reports on Iraq that one starts to wonder why. Why, for instance, is Hillary Clinton joining with the only Klansman in Congress to write an editorial saying that it is time to turn our backs and condemn the Iraqi people to what she describes as a "civil war," a stark difference to how the vast majority of Iraqis view the struggle. Michigan Senator Carl Levin - the same one who buckled so meekly in the face of his Democratic colleagues when they steamrolled through an amendment increasing CAFE standards - expects today to propose an amendment to bring the troops home.

What makes all of this so strange is that it is coming in advance of tomorrow's Pentagon report on how the surge is going. Why are they so excited to push ahead with their rhetoric before getting all of the information?

Hillary notes that the Pentagon says that the "overall level of violence in Iraq hasn't lessened." Well, that's obvious. The United States just sent in 30,000 more soldiers and began a major offensive. Of course the overall level of violence in Iraq hasn't lessened. The U.S. is out actively hunting down terrorists, actively securing civilian areas, and actively clearing sections of the most violent cities (Baghdad and Ramadi) in an effort to provide long-term stability. Al-Qaeda has reacted by trying to increase the level of violence aimed at American troops, hoping to scare the country into surrender. What is startling, however, is that despite 30,000 more troops and despite a major offensive by the Americans and by Al-Qaeda, there hasn't been an increase in the overall level of violence, as any reasonable assessment of the situation would expect. Why not? Because as the U.S. and Iraqi Iraqi forces clear areas, they become more peaceful. The increase in troop levels and in intensity is being matched by a decrease in violence in many areas, particularly Ramadi.

From The New York Times on Sunday:

Until only a few months ago, the Central Street bazaar was enemy territory, watched over by American machine-gunners in sandbagged bunkers on the roof of the governor's building across the road. Ramadi was Iraq's most dangerous city, and the area around the building the most deadly place in Ramadi. Now, a pact between local tribal sheiks and American commanders has sent thousands of young Iraqis from Anbar Province into the fight against extremists linked to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The deal has all but ended the fighting in Ramadi and recast the city as a symbol of hope that the tide of the war may yet be reversed to favor the Americans and their Iraqi allies.

---

The key to turning that around was the shift in allegiance by tribal sheiks. But the sheiks turned only after a prolonged offensive by American and Iraqi forces, starting in November, that put Al Qaeda groups on the run, in Ramadi and elsewhere across western Anbar.

Not for the first time, the Americans learned the basic lesson of warfare here: that Iraqis, bludgeoned for 24 years by Saddam Hussein's terror, are wary of rising against any force, however, brutal, until it is in retreat. In Anbar, Sunni extremists were the dominant force, with near-total popular support or acquiescence, until the offensive broke their power.

Tomorrow's Pentagon report is going to show three things:

1) The Iraqi government has failed to meet even one of the
benchmarks we want.

2) Sections of Baghdad are featuring intense fighting, while other
previously dangerous areas are safer.

3) Anbar province is an unquestioned, rousing victory and violence
there has been greatly diminished.

What will this mean? The troop surge has worked in Anbar and has shown some results in Baghdad, even while other areas of the capital are featuring more frequent and intense fighting. Is the surge an unmitigated success? No. Is it an unmitigated failure? Absolutely not We've seen some success, which is something that should be grasped onto dearly as we attempt to replicate it in Baghdad.

The only way to know for sure, however, is to wait for the report tomorrow and not blindly rush into attempts at swaying public perception or push through legislation before even the small amount of information available tomorrow comes out, let alone when the final report is complete in September. Why the blind, mad rush to pull the troops out now, before the report on the surge is complete? Could it be that they are afraid that the good news in the report will weaken their goal to deliver a political defeat to the President?