I think this is a pretty astute political analysis by (yes) Jonah Goldberg. Contrary to the media's assumptions, the better things are going in Iraq, the more it helps Democrats, because it relieves Americans of the belief that they have to stay in order to prevent massive bloodshed. As Goldberg writes, "If [the war] were going worse, McCain’s Churchillian rhetoric would match reality better. But with sectarian violence nearly gone, al Qaeda in Iraq almost totally routed and even Sadrist militias seemingly neutralized, the stakes of withdrawal seem low enough for Americans to feel comfortable voting for Obama." That's basically right. The McCain strategy requires an odd "sweet spot" to succeed: Iraq must be neither stable enough to make American withdrawal a conceivable possibility, nor bloody enough to make American retreat a public priority. In early-2005, the situation was bad enough that most Americans wanted to get the hell out whatever the cost. So Democrats won big in 2006 on a platform of withdrawal. In late-2008, it's good enough that most Americans want to...get the hell out. And I think it's entirely possible that, again, Democrats will win big on a platform of withdrawal. The difference is, now voters can endorse it with a clear conscience. Hell, the government of Iraq is even asking us to leave. McCain is trying to reshape the issue into a question of honor, but that doesn't make a lot of sense: There's nothing dishonorable about leaving when your job is done. There's also the corollary to this, which is that the less Iraq dominates the news, the more issues like health care and the economy move to the fore. And that's bad for the GOP.
