Leaving Iraq? Not so fast...

In the print edition, I have an article today, dealing with the recent surge in the number of people saying that Iraq in not necessarily a lost cause.

This may be the sign of a new trend, or simply a summer illusion, but the growing accumulation of evidence can no longer be ignored: Could U.S. President George W. Bush's new strategy in Iraq be working?

There are signs that the American public is seeing positive results. Otherwise, it is difficult to explain the results of a Gallup poll, which showed that 31 percent of those asked felt that the infusion of additional troops in Iraq "has improved the situation." This constituted a nearly 10-percent increase. At the same time, there is a drop of nearly 10 percent, from 51 percent to 41 percent, among those who believe that the extra soldiers either have not changed the situation or they have made it worse.

This would also explain a New York Times poll that indicated a rise - a rise! - in the number of Americans who believe that the invasion of Iraq was justified (from 35 percent to 42 percent). This is such an amazing increase that the daily decided to redo the poll just to be on the safe side. The number of those polled who argued that the decision to invade Iraq was mistaken dropped from 61 percent to 51 percent.

Today, the NYT added another layer to this cake, claiming that "the Democratic presidential candidates are setting out positions that could leave the United States engaged in Iraq for years". These positions and those of some rivals, argues the Times, suggest that the "Democratic bumper-sticker message of a quick end to the conflict ? however much it appeals to primary voters ? oversimplifies the problems likely to be inherited by the next commander in chief. Antiwar advocates have raised little challenge to such positions by Democrats".

The second most senior Democrat in the Senate, Senator Richard Durbin, congratulated the U.S. troops serving in Iraq on Wednesday, which is nothing new even for those opposed to the war. But what he added to his congratulatory statement had to be read twice to be believed: He said that the activity of the forces on the ground "is showing results." Durbin, in whose party some hoped to force the president to alter his policy in Iraq, is willing to publicly admit that something has improved in the American performance there.

Of course, the American public has not changed its attitude entirely, and Iraq is far from being seen as a smashing success. In an interview to Haaretz on Wednesday, on the eve of his visit to Israel, the House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, said that the current policy in Iraq cannot continue. He wants change - but he wants it to come about in a responsible way, one that will not undermine regional stability. Hoyer is among those Democrats who would like to see a redeployment a lot more than a rushed withdrawal.

A congressional aide told Haaretz yesterday that all these signs are merely "a small bump in the road," not a change in the overall trend. Still, he was willing to admit that the bump exists. He also agreed that the withdrawal plan proposed by Democrats fails to answer tough questions.

"What will we do if we redeploy our forces and a massacre takes place? This is a major hole in our plan," he admitted.

Signs of success in Iraq are also contributing to divisions among the Democrats because even the most ardent opponents of the war do not want to appear to be disappointed by success - even partial success - in Iraq.

The renewed willingness to reevaluate what is taking place in Iraq is best seen in an article published in the New York Times two weeks ago by two scholars at the Brookings Institute - a think tank situated on the center-left of the American political spectrum. Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, both well-known and established academics, returned from Iraq and announced that, at least from a military point of view, they were surprised by the American achievements. They suggested that even though victory may not be possible, there is a chance that the final result will retain a stability in Iraq that both the U.S. and the locals can live with.

This article was bolstered by another article written by the military analyst of The Associated Press, who declared that "The New Strategy Works."

For the Bush administration this is welcome news, but for the left in America, cause for vitriolic responses.

The president has a few more weeks to take advantage of the public relations value of the favorable assessments, and perhaps even succeed in reinforcing the image that things have changed. In September, the progress report required from General David Petraeus, commander in Iraq and the man behind the new American strategy, will be presented to Congress. His report will show military gains but also point to failures. Then, the political battle will be joined once more.