Signs of Success

Powerful article in the American Spectator by John Tabin about the post-election "Iraq Spring." And, for once, "our source was the New York Times":

"The Iraqi focus on its own democracy, and the new view of the United States, surfaced in dozens of interviews with Iraqis since last Sunday's election," reports the Times, noting that "by many accounts, the elections last week altered Iraqis' relationship with the United States more than any single event since the invasion." . . .

The terrorist insurgency has not gone away, but the fiction that the insurgents represent Iraqis as a whole has been erased by the success of the elections. . .

One election does not a democracy make. But it has become ever more clear in the past two weeks that the election in Iraq was a real turning point, and that there is every reason for optimism about the continuing process of democratization.

More:

Suddenly, even Tom Friedman gets it:

There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld.

Democrats need to start thinking seriously about Iraq - the way Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton have. If France - the mother of all blue states - can do it, so, too, can the Democrats. Otherwise, they will be absenting themselves from the most important foreign policy issue of our day. . .

[I]f Iraqis succeed in forging a social contract in the hardest place of all, it means that democracy is actually possible anywhere in the Arab world.

Democrats do not favor using military force against Iran's nuclear program or to compel regime change there. That is probably wise. But they don't really have a diplomatic option. I've got one: Iraq. Iraq is our Iran policy.

(via Instapundit and again)