Do Tell

As the New York Times slips ever deeper into the pit of irrelevance, the Washington Post seems determined to establish itself as the only major American newspaper with both semi-reliable reporting, and editorial writers who don't require anti-psychotic meds.

Not that you'd know it from reading the Times or watching NBC, but we've basically been winning the war in Iraq lately. And while the Democrats are certainly capable of accomplishing their goal of defeat and humiliation of the United States, they're going to have to hurry. [No, we don't believe that Senator Obama, let alone Senator Clinton, stay up late devising new ways to weaken the United States. But we do think that an irresistible portion of the Democratic Party is so fixed on the goal of the destruction of George W. Bush that if accomplishing that end includes collateral damage that is contrary to the interests of the United States as a whole, then they are indifferent (at best) to those consequences.]

But we digress.

Today's Washington Post editorial observes:

THERE'S BEEN a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran. At the same time, Iraqi and U.S. forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have "never been closer to defeat than they are now."

[snip]

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.