The troop surge in Iraq is starting to look as if it is working. I know, I know. It’s probably a temporary lull. And it’s far from peaceful in Iraq. And yes, we could have done things differently and gotten to this place sooner. And the Iraqi government isn’t being helpful, by all accounts, which means the potential for fresh violence is always there. And our troops aren’t streaming home. And the occupation still costs a fortune. And Iraq’s infrastructure is a mess.

Still.

What if President Bush was right about the surge? Suppose patience and more force, along with the natural learning curve on how to operate over there, were all the Iraqis needed to get to relative peace? Suppose the Iraqi citizens start asking themselves why the Kurds are so fat and happy, and demand more of their government? Could democracy actually take root?

And could Iraq’s experience with al-Qaeda be the death blow to al-Qaeda’s credibility with other extremists in the region?

I’m starting to think it could happen. I don’t PREDICT it will happen, but for the first time I can imagine it. And this begs a fascinating hypothetical question:

If the surge works, would you give President Bush his due credit for “staying the course”?

Or would we point to all of his other mistakes, including the justifications for war, the lack of occupation planning, and the long list of other grievances and dismiss him with “Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut”?

I know you can make an argument that says the surge isn’t working, or won’t work, or Iraq will descend further into civil war when we leave, or democracy will never work. That’s too easy. For today, answer the hypothetical: IF staying the course works, and you had been a critic of it, will you give President Bush and his team credit for doing this part right?