I agree with this take:
But from the moment Bush went into Iraq, Americans were screwed. And that includes the Democratic Party, which is being set up to take the fall.Democrats have a basic, important choice to make here. They can bask lazily in the waning days of an unpopular administration and allow Iraq to play out to their continued advantage, or they can get to work and at least try to put limits on the White House. The former will probably lead to victory in 2008, but it carries huge longer term risk for the party. For Dems, the worst-case scenario might be to inherit a failed, unpopular occupation upon which Congress has placed no tactical or funding limits, then having to put limits on themselves. Ultimately this might allow Bush to escape sole accountability for Iraq and empower the usual suspects to infect political and social discourse with the Weimar meme for the next new decades. Imagine the scenario of a cautious, vacillating Hillary clinging to an updated version of "peace with honor" while fighting off an alliance of Congressional Democrats and some Republicans who, after November '08, will no doubt rediscover their vestigial anti-interventionist instincts. How's that as a prescription for party and national disaster?
I'm a severe skeptic on the likelihood of anything that looks like success in Iraq. But I don't think career public servants such as Ryan Crocker and David Petraeus are acting as partisan Republicans in their Iraq efforts. I think they both are sincere, experienced men attempting to retrieve what they can for America from Bush's catastrophe. They may as well try, since the Democrats can't over-rule Bush and get the troops out, anyway. If the troops are there, they may as well at least be deployed intelligently, which is what Gen. Petraeus is doing. I wish them well in their Herculean labors. Because if they fail, I have a sinking feeling that we are all going down with them, including the next Democratic president. And their success is a long shot.