For three years, the Bush Administration clung to a strategy that underestimated Iraq’s political and social instability and, consequently, the demands on American military and political staying power. Every time the Pentagon announced that the United States would soon be able to reduce its military presence and concentrate on a “support role” for Iraqi military and security forces, the internal battle for Iraq intensified.

Washington altered course only this year. General David Petraeus, the architect of America’s new counter-insurgency strategy, is the first to say that it is too soon to tell whether this neighbourhood-based approach marks the beginning of a turning of the tide. Encouraging as they are, none of the recent improvements in security can yet be described as irreversible. Yet the progress after a matter of no more than weeks is nonetheless remarkable – not only in districts of Baghdad that are no longer warzones but in the most recalcitrant areas of Iraq, the heartlands of the Sunni insurgency, where tribal leaders have turned against al-Qaeda and thousands are queueing to enlist in the Iraqi Armed Forces. Markets have reopened in places where people cowered in their homes; ministries are beginning to function; and, thanks to a greatly improved flow of local intelligence to US forces, the number of suicide bomb attacks and murders has decreased significantly. Feelers are out to US commanders from rival militia leaders in the Shia south.

Slowly, the dynamics in Iraq are changing – changing enough to make rule-of-thumb withdrawal deadlines a damaging irrelevance. US congressmen who have recently been to Iraq, including vociferous opponents of the war, have returned impressed not only by American troop morale but by the greater discipline and competence of the Iraqi military and by the cooperation from Iraqis with joint patrols policing their neighbourhoods. The question now is whether the political dynamics back in Washington are also capable of changing in the light of the findings that General Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the ambassador, are presenting this week.

These are intelligent, experienced public servants whose profound understanding of Iraq and the wider region demands a considered congressional response. Those Democrats who have insinuated that General Petraeus is in the pocket of the White House disqualify themselves as serious participants in the national debate; even in a war of entrenched political positions, such smear tactics should have no place. The Democrats have been obsessed for nine months by fixed deadlines for withdrawing US troops. The “respectable” argument for such deadlines was that they would force Iraq’s fractious politicians to cooperate, but the effect was the opposite, emboldening extremists and empowering militia leaders.

Iraq timeline: five years of conflict

From accusations that the weapons of mass destruction dossier had been sexed-up to withdrawal of British troops from Basra

Multimedia

• Poll: Was Iraq war worth the sacrifice?

• Audio slideshow: Iraq conflict explained

• Pictures: Iraq, war and aftermath

Related Internet Links

• Read the Inside Iraq blog from our team in Baghdad

Related Links

• Turning point for America in Iraq

• Petraeus urged to pull out troops

• Q&A: General Petraeus and the surge

Democrats and Republicans should listen to General Petraeus’s arguments for sustaining the “surge”. The building blocks of a new Iraq are being manufactured locally, not nationally; the question is whether peace in segregated neighbourhoods will lead to grassroots efforts at intersectarian conciliation.

Piecemeal successes do not make headlines. But to pull the rug from under a potentially winning strategy would be insane. Iraqis have by no means fallen in love with foreign occupation. But they do see America as their necessary ally against the enemies within. The message is that steadfastness yields results. To rush to the exit would be to betray Iraqis and principle.