What's the hurry?

Check out this fascinating document, if for no other reason than the fact that it's a fascinating document. Fortunately, it supports the following:

There's consternation among many hawks that support for the war in Congress is going south just as the war itself is going north. The increase in U.S. troop strength does seem to be making a difference (see this New York Times story by John Burns, for example, on the same day the editorial page endorsed a withdrawal). Whether that level of commitment could be maintained, even with a supportive Congress, is another question. Let's just leave that issue for now.

So why are Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress in such a hurry to get out of Iraq when the strategy they endorsed and agreed to pay for just a couple of months ago shows signs of succeeding? I don't know whether it enters their calculations or not, but this may be the only chance Congress has of getting the United States out of Iraq for the next six years or so. Consider:

-- In 1952, President Truman was about as unpopular as President Bush is today, and the Korean War about as popular as the Iraq War (if you didn't click on the document above, go take a look). Democrats suffered pretty big losses in the 1950 midterms but held their majorities in both chambers. Korea played a big part in the presidential campaign, with Dwight Eisenhower saying "I will go to Korea." The war went on for another six months after he took office. A cease-fire was signed in July 1953, but the United States still has 32,000 troops there and another 35,000 in Japan.

-- In 1968, President Johnson was about as unpopular as President Bush is today, and the Vietnam War about as unpopular as the Iraq War. Democrats had suffered big losses in the 1966 midterms but held their majorities in both chambers. Vietnam played a big part in the presidential campaign, with Richard Nixon saying he had a secret plan to end the war. U.S. troops would be in Vietnam until 1973 as the task of defending the country was passed off to the South Vietnamese and an armistice negotiated. Had Watergate not intervened, U.S. troops would probably still be in Vietnam in the same capacity as those in Korea.

Which brings us to 2008. President Bush is about as unpopular as Truman and Johnson. Iraq is as unpopular as Vietnam and Korea. Republicans suffered big losses in the midterm elections and lost their majorities in both chambers. Iraq will be the issue in the coming presidential campaign. But unlike the other wars, there is no organized opposing force with which to negotiate, no line of demarcation to separate the armies. It's either win or lose, and right now Congressional Democrats are voting to lose.

Why the hurry? I believe they have to do this while Bush is still president. If they don't, there's an even chance that they'll have to make this decision, which will likely mean the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, with a Democrat in the White House. Will that give them pause about pulling out?

I think it might.

MORE at StrataSphere, Wizbang.

UPDATE: It's Wednesday morning, 7/18 (reminds me of a Simon & Garfunkel song), and the Senate is through Day 1 of Harry Reid's slumber party. I just can't fathom a party leader pulling off this kind of publicity stunt with 150,000 troops in a combat zone. How low can he go? Jules Crittenden has lots o' links.