The Bush administration may not have a more opportune time to decisively swing the war against the insurgents. Zarqawi is dead, and Iraq's new defense and interior ministers are in place. The Wall Street Journal weighs in that " now's the time to secure Baghdad," and the editors of the National Review show common cause with Sen. McCain on Iraq. They write:
If Maliki, in these conditions, says he needs, say, another 20,000 U.S. troops to finally secure Baghdad, Bush shouldn't hesitate. This would bring howls and comparisons to the escalation in Vietnam. But we suspect the public would be willing to swallow it, if such an increase in troops levels is persuasively linked to a plan for victory. The comparisons to Vietnam are more aptly made about the status quo, which has featured steadily ebbing domestic support and an arguably decaying situation on the ground. In sheer political terms, Bush is probably better off taking action-even what seems a risky action in an election year-than "staying the course" with the same old resolute, reassuring talk.
In other words, do what it takes to win. Only someone in total denial wouldn't recognize that the current strategy for securing the Baghdad area isn't getting the job done, as Reuel Marc Gerecht, Frederick Kagan, and others have noted. Above all, we must not " give Zarqawi a victory in death that he could not achieve in life."