Iraqi History Repeats Itself

Before the Iraq war, liberals tended to argue against the invasion on the grounds that it would result in a quagmire, a humanitarian catastrophe and potentially a regional meltdown. Conservatives said the invasion would be a cakewalk and that we'd be greeted as liberators. Both turned out to be right.

Conservatives were right that deposing Saddam was, by historical standards, a swift operation with minimal casualties. Many Iraqis did welcome American troops as liberators. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, conservatives claimed vindication.

But then liberals turned out to be correct about the longer-term prospects - U.S. forces became bogged down in an insurgency and sectarian civil war. Refugees poured from the country. Civilian deaths soared.

History appears to be repeating itself with respect to the surge. Many conservatives said additional forces were needed to quell the insurgency while liberals said it would be insufficient to forge the political accommodations necessary to ensure long-term peace and stability. And, lo and behold, violence is down and conservatives are proclaiming victory on the basis of several months of calm.

Now, the New York Times and Time are reporting that elements of al Qaeda in Iraq are infiltrating many of the Sunni militia groups the U.S. had managed to flip. Alissa Rubin in the Times reports that the hard core remnants of the Baath party are partnered up with al Qaeda and still represent a potentially potent source of violence as the U.S. begins to depart.

Does this mean that liberals will ultimately be vindicated again? I hope not. We will know more about the durability of the current calm in Iraq as the U.S. begins to withdraw. But it's not simply partisan peevishness that makes some people reluctant to declare victory.