Posted by Curt on 31 July, 2007 at 7:40 am. 1 comment.

Wow….talk about a bad start to the week for Democrats.  First the the New York Times prints an editorial by two left leaning Democrats from a left leaning think tank that said Iraq is turning around then we have the Prime Minister of England, Gordon Brown, tell the world that he stands united with President Bush:

The world owes a debt to the United States for its leadership in the fight against international terrorism, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said.

Arriving for his first formal talks as PM with President Bush, he said the UK’s "most important bilateral relationship", was that with the US.

~~~

Mr Brown said the shared ideals of two centuries of history "have linked the destinies" of the two countries.

He also quoted Winston Churchill – the first British prime minister to visit Camp David – who also spoke of a "joint inheritance".

This close relationship would help in the fight against nuclear proliferation, global poverty, climate change and global terrorism, Mr Brown said.

"And we should acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this fight against international terrorism," he added.

And after the meetings?

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told President Bush Monday he shares the U.S. view that there are “duties to discharge and responsibilities to keep” in Iraq. “Our aim, like the United States is, step-by-step, to move control to the Iraqi authorities,” Brown said, joining Bush at a news conference at the president’s Maryland mountaintop ranch.

~~~

Brown said that decisions about troops would only be made “on the military advice of our commanders on the ground,” echoing language often heard from Bush.

Just as we had many differences with Tony Blair, we will most definitely have many differences with Gordon Brown.  But it appears on this issue nothing much will change.  Thankfully.

Democrats were hoping for a miserable report from Gen. Petraeus, doesn’t look like thats going to happen.  Democrats woke up yesterday and read an editorial in the liberal New York Times that we are winning this war, not losing as they have been shrilly crying for some time now.  Democrats heard from the only Muslim in their ranks that things are turning around in Iraq and now this.

Bad week for those Democrats praying for defeat.

UPDATE

Great piece by Victor Davis Hanson on that NYT’s editorial:

What is interesting about the essay is that both scholars were early supporters of the war to remove Saddam Hussein, then constant critics of the acknowledged mistakes of the occupation, and now somewhat confident that Gen. Petraeus can still salvage a victory. In two regards, they reflect somewhat the vast majority of the American people who approved the war, slowly soured on the peace — but now have yet to be won over again by the surge to renew their erstwhile support.

We are witnessing two phenomena. First, after four years of misery the Iraqis themselves are tiring of war, have grasped what al Qaeda et al. do when in local control, realize the U.S. wants to leave only after establishing a constitutional state, not steal its oil, sense that the United States may well win — and are slowly making adjustments to hedge their bets.

In a wider sense, the war is as most wars: an evolution from blunders to wisdom, the side that makes the fewest and learns from them the most eventually winning. Al Qaeda and the insurgents in 2004-6 developed the means, both tactical and strategic, to thwart the reconstruction, but we, not they, have since learned the more and evolved.

As in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII, the present American military — which has committed far less mistakes than past American forces — has shifted tactics, redefined strategy, and found the right field commanders. We forget that the U.S. Army and Marines, far from being broken, now have the most experienced and wizened officers in the world. Like Summer 1864, Summer 1918, and in the Pacific 1944-5, the key is the support of a weary public for an ever improving military that must nevertheless endure a final storm before breaking the enemy.

As usual , VDH is spot-on.  al-Qaeda learned very quickly in 2003 that the only way they could win this thing is to take a page out of the North Vietnamese playbook and enlist the help of American leftists in defeating America.  For some time that strategy appeared to work as the MSM worked diligently beside them in ensuring victory for al-Qaeda but then Bush did what all great leaders do.  They adapted and found the right General, at the right time, who would change everything around.  It takes guts for a leader to change course 180 degrees instead of just stubbornly insisting that his initial choices were correct. 

>