...More in the same vein

Today's NYTimes' piggybacks on last week's Politico:

For the first time in nearly two years, people are moving with freedom around much of this city. In more than 50 interviews across Baghdad, it became clear that while there were still no-go zones, more Iraqis now drive between Sunni and Shiite areas for work, shopping or school, a few even after dark. In the most stable neighborhoods of Baghdad, some secular women are also dressing as they wish. Wedding bands are playing in public again, and at a handful of once shuttered liquor stores customers now line up outside in a collective rebuke to religious vigilantes from the Shiite Mahdi Army.

In a way, with a family member just six months from beginning military service, and likely only 18 months from Iraq, this news is scary. In another way, it's a relief.

Nine months later, more words on Iraq:

Because I have so much pessimism regarding our Iraqi debacle, I feel compelled to report things that make me seriously reconsider my viewpoint. It seems instructive that I've only felt compelled twice within the last nine months, but I digress. My viewpoint is (and was) that we never should have entered. I also believe staying means Americans die. I don't believe there is any promise of positive change, even years down the line.

But, we're not here to recap me or my opinions. We're here to read about what's making me reconsider. Observe:

Politico is a new online newspaper. It stole many of the Washington Post's political reporters, including James VandeHei and John F. Harris, who I believe was the White House bureau chief, or some shit. Point is, VandeHei and Harris are good. They might be among the best. This is what they wrote today as part of a critique of the ineffective Democratic war opposition:

"It turns out that Washington matters less than many Democrats and even many journalists supposed in determining political momentum in the Iraq debate.
"Events on the ground — including regular, if still fragmentary, evidence that security is improving somewhat in the wake of the military’s “surge” policy — matter more."

Of course, VandeHei and Harris are political reporters. They aren't suggesting that the war is going well. Their point is only that it is going well enough. It is going too well, that is, to galvanize political opposition.

As part of their article, VandeHei and Harris justify the belief that things are going well by linking to this opinion article written by long-time war opponent Rep. Brian Baird (D-Washington) after an August trip to Iraq. Baird voted against the war in 2003, so he's got cred with me. I didn't see his article when it came out, which saddens me. But whatever. It's dynamite.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Baird's logic -- he seems to suggest that since we've already lost thousands of soldiers, we need to continue until we win -- he makes allegations of fact which seem truer when coming from a long-time war opponent than they otherwise would:

"Our soldiers are reclaiming ground and capturing or killing high-priority targets on a daily basis. Sheiks and tribal groups are uniting to fight against the extremists and have virtually eliminated al-Qaida from certain areas. The Iraqi military and police are making progress in their training, taking more responsibility for bringing the fight to the insurgents and realizing important victories. Businesses and factories that were once closed are being reopened and people are working again. The infrastructure is gradually being repaired and markets are returning to life."

Baird doesn't necessarily convince me. But, he lends credence to statements which I otherwise almost dismiss. By toeing a party line that isn't his, he makes me listen. You should listen, too.

Also, you should bookmark Politico. You'll thank me later.