Hearings on Capitol Hill are a uniquely American way of playing floodlights across the political scene. The closer such events are to an election, the more likely they are to illuminate grotesque prejudices, rather than serve as a catalyst for informed debate on difficult policy decisions.

This week’s candid and measured two-day testimony on Iraq by General David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, Ambassador to Baghdad, brought out the best, and the worst, in the US political system. It displayed openness and accountability on the one hand, and on the other presented the spectacle of an unseemly political scramble to come up with soundbites aimed more at grabbing media attention than at highlighting the salient issues presented by the two men’s sober first-hand assessments of Iraq’s situation and prospects.

What could and should have been an opportunity for congressional leaders to reflect on their positions on Iraq was irresponsibly turned by too many of them into an occasion for boasting that they were not to be swayed. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the leading Democratic contenders in the US presidential race, maintained their shrill demands for a change of course in Iraq, seemingly oblivious to the fact that America has already changed course and that this testimony was all about what the new Iraq strategy has, and has not, achieved to date.

To effect that shift, with its emphasis on improving security for Iraq’s population and thus creating space for national reconciliation, was precisely why General Petraeus was sent there for a third tour of duty. Circumstances in Iraq are still difficult, and neither General Petraeus nor Mr Crocker pretended otherwise, but militarily and at least at the local political level they are better than they were – and certainly better than they would be were the US precipitately to head for the exit.

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

American opinion polls show that more than 60 per cent trust the US military to handle Iraq better than either Congress or the Bush Administration. Passionately as most Americans want an end to their engagement in Iraq, fewer than a quarter want to “get out now and damn the consequences”. Point-scoring is no substitute for a feasible strategy on Iraq, and, since the Democrats have not found one, they should award General Petraeus the personnel and money that he needs to cement this summer’s hard-won gains.

Least of all should opponents of the war, in America or in this country, seize on the brutal assassination of Sheikh Abdul Sittar Bezea al-Rishawi, the Sunni tribal leader who initiated the grassroots uprising against al-Qaeda in Anbar province, as “proof” that these gains are illusory.

Sheikh Sittar’s dramatic conversion from insurgent to ally of US forces was prompted by the murder by al-Qaeda of his father and four brothers, but his movement snowballed so rapidly because all Anbar was revolted by al-Qaeda’s reign of terror. His murder removes a charismatic figure bent on forging a political movement strong enough to give the Sunnis political weight within the Government, an essential basis for the national reconciliation that he preached.

Yet the outraged reaction in Anbar and Baghdad to his murder underlines how deeply rooted is the Sunni “awakening” that he inspired and which has spread stability across the Euphrates valley. This is a political transformation of the first order, bigger than the man himself, and its significance is well understood in Baghdad. Outside Iraq, an antiwar industry has sprung up that cites the suffering of Iraqis to justify abandoning them. The man who became known as “the Flower of the Desert” died fighting that cynical false logic. His courage, and that of thousands of his followers, puts the Iraq debate in its proper perspective.