Back when we did our quick survey of the rise of the modern conservative movement through the briefly lived MyDD Book Club, the first piece we looked at was Phillip Agree's What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong With It? In the piece, Agree urged liberals to read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, as it typically provides the best insight into new conservative arguments that will soon be nationalized: The Wall Street Journal's opinion page is the most important conservative publication, and it is often described as a bulletin board for the conservatism. A better metaphor, however, would be a war room. Day by day, the Wall Street Journal's editors detect liberal arguments coming over the horizon, and immediately they gather up and distribute the arguments that conservatives will need to rebut them. Since the retirement of its late editor Robert Bartley, the Journal's opinion page has become more sophisticated. The crude lies and belligerent irrationality of the Bartley era have not disappeared, but they have certainly been attenuated. Daniel Henninger in particular does something interesting with clouds of associations that are subrational but not quite fallacious. With this advice in mind, and with Rov'e comments now a few days old, check out the latest editorial from the WSJ: The polls show the American people are growing pessimistic about Iraq, and no wonder. They are being rallied against the cause by such statesmen as the two above. Six months after they repudiated the insurgency in a historic election, free Iraqis are continuing to make slow but steady political and military gains. Where the terrorists are gaining ground is in Washington, D.C. Operation blame the liberals has expanded into operation blame all war critics. Criticizing the war means you are helping the terrorists. Expect much of the same from Bush tomorrow, even if in somewhat more Luntz-approved language.

Speaking of expansion: The proposal to fix a date certain for U.S. withdrawal is especially destructive, inviting the terrorists to wait us out and Iraqi ethnic groups to start arming themselves. The only important idea we've heard from Congress is John McCain's suggestion that if Damascus keeps abetting the insurgency, the U.S. is under no obligation to honor Syria's territorial integrity when pursuing terrorists seeking sanctuary in that country. Of course, the belligerent irrationality might be replacing the subconscious clouds of association again. Look at these three sections (emphasis mine): This is despite tangible, albeit underreported, progress in Iraq. In the political arena, an Iraqi transition government has formed that includes representatives from all ethnic and religious groups. Leading Sunnis who boycotted January's election are now participating both in the parliament and in drafting a new constitution. The Shiite uprising of a year ago has been defeated. The government now has three deadlines to meet: drafting a constitution by August, a referendum on that constitution in October and elections for a permanent government in December.(...)

As for security, the daily violence is terrible and dispiriting, but it is not a sign of an expanding insurgency. As U.S. and Iraqi military targets have hardened their defenses, the terrorists have turned to larger bombs delivered by suicidal jihadists aimed at softer targets. This drives up the casualty figures, especially against Iraqi civilians, but it does not win more political converts.(...)

Insurgencies that have prevailed in history--Algeria, China, Cuba--have all had a large base of popular support. That more of the bombers seem to be coming from outside Iraq is cause for worry, since it means there will be a continuing supply of suicide bombers. But it also means that the insurgency is becoming an invasion force against Iraq itself, which means it lacks the native roots to sustain it.

The trend is in fact toward more civilian cooperation with Iraqi and U.S. security forces. Calls to the military hotline have climbed to 1,700 from 50 in January, according to U.S. commanders, and better intelligence has led to the recent capture of key insurgent leaders, including a top deputy to Musab al-Zarqawi. An Iraqi TV show profiling captured jihadists--"Terrorism in the Hands of Justice"--is a popular hit.

Everyone wishes that Iraqi security forces could be trained faster to replace U.S. troops, and to secure areas from which terrorists have been ousted. But here, too, there has been progress. About 100 Iraqi units are now able to conduct special operations on their own. General George Casey, the Iraq theater commander, says there has not been a single failure of an Iraqi military unit since the election. And new recruits continue to volunteer, even though this makes them terrorist targets.

Mr. Biden delivered a lecture last week that boiled down to letting France train 1,500 Iraqi "gendarmes" and pressing for 5,000 NATO troops to patrol the Syrian border. Both are fine with us, assuming Mr. Biden gets to negotiate with the French, but neither is going to turn the tide of war.

If tangible progress is being made in the political arena, if the insurgency is not expanding, if the insurgency is not winning more converts, if the insurgency is losing its support among the native population, if the native population is starting to offer more help the US forces, and if the Iraqi security forces are strengthening, why would we even need to "turn the tide of the war?" The Journal tells us that things are improving in nearly way possible, which one would think is tantamount to turning the tide of the war, and then tells us that we still need to turn the tide of the war. Brutal irrationality indeed. Further, the WSJ likes to assure us that the rising body counts are a result of increasing attacks on “softer targets,” ie, civilians. However, the fact is that violence against Iraqi Security forces and coalition occupational forces has dramatically increased over the past few months.

Military Fatalities in Iraq
      Iraqi    Coalition    Total    Daily
Jun    282         78        360      13.3
May    270         88        358      11.5
Apr    199         52        251      8.4
Mar    200         40        240      7.7
Feb    103         60        163      5.8
Jan    109        127        236      7.6

These are not the “soft” civilian targets the Journal speaks of. The insurgency has clearly improved its ability to attack “hard” military targets over the past few months, Now, everyday, more than a baker’s dozen perish. Remember, of course, that setting a timetable for withdrawal will just allow the terrorists to wait things out. It really seems like they are waiting. Brutal irrationality indeed. No wonder the American people aren’t buying it.