Petraeus' report may further deepen divisions over the war

Come September, America might slip closer toward a Weimar moment. It would be milder than the original but significantly disagreeable.

After the First World War, politics in Germany's new Weimar Republic were poisoned by the belief that the army had been poised for victory in 1918 and that one more surge could have turned the tide. Many Germans bitterly concluded that the political class, having lost its nerve and will to win, capitulated. The fact that fanciful analysis fed this rancor did not diminish its power.

When Gen. David Petraeus delivers his September report, his audience will include two militant factions. Perhaps nothing he can responsibly say will sway either, so September will reinforce animosities.

One faction -- essentially, congressional Democrats -- is heavily invested in the belief that prolonging U.S. involvement can have no benefit commensurate with the costs. The war, this faction says, is lost because even its repeatedly and radically revised objective -- a stable society under a tolerable regime -- is beyond America's military capacity and nation-building competence.

The other faction, equal in anger and certitude, argues, not for the first time (remember the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, Iraqi voters' purple fingers, the Iraqi constitution, the killing of Saddam's sons, the capture of Saddam, etc.), that the tide has turned. How febrile is this faction? Recently it became euphoric because of a New York Times column by Brookings Institution scholars who reported:

"We are finally getting somewhere" ("at least in military terms"), the troops' "morale is high," "civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began" and there is "the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory'" but "sustainable stability."

But the scholars also said:

"The situation in Iraq remains grave," fatalities "remain very high," "the dependability of Iraqi security forces … remains a major question mark," "the Iraqi National Police" are "mostly a disaster," "Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle …" and it is unclear how much longer we can "wear down our forces in this mission."

The rapturous reception of that column by one faction was evidence of the one thing both factions share -- a powerful will to believe, or disbelieve, as their serenity requires. Consider the following from the war-is-irretrievable faction:

Rep. Nancy Boyda, a Kansas Democrat, recently found reports of progress unendurable. She left a hearing of the Armed Services Committee because retired Gen. Jack Keane was saying things Boyda thinks might "further divide this country," such as that Iraq's "schools are open. The markets are teeming with people." Boyda explained: "There is only so much you can take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while ... after so much frustration of having to listen to what we listened to."

In the other faction, there still are those so impervious to experience that they continue to refer to Syria as "lower-hanging fruit." Such metaphors bewitch minds. Low-hanging fruit is plucked, then eaten. What does one nation do when it plucks another? In Iraq, America is in its fifth year of learning the answer.

Petraeus' metrics of success might ignite more arguments than they settle. In America, police drug sweeps often produce metrics of success but dealers soon relocate their operations. If Iraqi security forces have become substantially more competent, some Americans will say U.S. forces can depart; if those security forces have not yet substantially improved, the same people will say U.S. forces must depart.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group