I was reading this essay on National Review Online. In it, the author draws some interesting parallels between the current situation in Iraq and past wars in which the United States has fought, most interestingly the Civil War.
The author, Peter Wehner, makes the point that many wars have begun with an anticipation of a quick victory only to have reality set in. WWI comes most readily to mind. However, I had forgotten that the North had similar expectations of an easy victory after only a few months of the Civil War, only to have reality set in after the First Battle of Bull Run. This rude awakening was followed by the shock of the Second Battle of Bull Run.
Had Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi been leading the Senate or House in 1861, Lincoln would have been inundated with calls to withdraw from the South. Pelosi lieutenant John Murtha would have called to redeploy the Army of the Potomac. Instead Lincoln did what great leaders do during times of conflict. He changed his military leadership and adjusted his military strategy to reflect the facts of the conflict.
This is exactly what George Bush is doing. Yes, there have been mistakes and setbacks in Iraq. However, believing in our goals, Bush has changed the military leadership and allowed his newest commander, Gen. David Petraeus, to craft and implement a new strategy. A strategy that appears to be working.
This is not rocket science. These lessons are simple: resolve of purpose and strategic flexibility. So, what does that say about the leadership of the Democrats that they can't see this?