The next talking point for Democrats has emerged in respect of the Battle of Iraq. The three leading contenders are agreed — this emerged at Las Vegas — that President Bush should refrain from negotiating a deal with Iraq’s government on the long-term presence of American soldiers in the country. Senator Clinton asked Senator Obama to co-sponsor her legislation “to try to rein in President Bush so that he doesn’t commit this country to his policy in Iraq.” Mr. Obama opined, “The notion that President Bush could somehow tie the hands of the next president, I think, is contrary to how our democracy’s supposed to work.” Senator Edwards promptly contradicted his own earlier policy papers and pledged to remove all combat troops from Iraq in his first year in office. Not to be outdone, the New York Times Thursday issued an editorial calling on Congress to demand a vote on any new agreement regarding the long term American presence.

Well, it’s nice to see the liberals come around to the idea that Congress ought to endorse the international arrangements of prior presidents. Perhaps the Democrats and the Times will apply the same principle to their cherished Kyoto Accord or the International Criminal Court. The truth is that the Washington-Baghdad negotiations are not likely to conclude before the next president takes office. The reason is that the current federal government in Baghdad is far too divided to reach an accord on Coalition troops. That is almost certainly an issue that is going to have to await the election of a new Parliament in Baghdad. In other words, it’s going to have to await elections scheduled for 2009. So the real question is whether the Democratic Party’s nominee will commit at least to keeping enough troops in Iraq to protect that democratic process from attack by anti-democratic elements.

And just to put the Democratic Party aspirates further on the spot, who is the logical person to decide what kind of American force levels are going to be required to help protect voters — remember those brave souls with the purple-stained fingers at whom all of us thrilled — from the assassins and saboteurs who are lurking? Why, the logical person is General Petraeus. Talk about your willing suspension of disbelief. Is Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama going to gainsay the general’s judgment on a matter like this? Particularly because the 2009 elections are so key to the long term stability of Iraq. If Iraqis elect new leaders, or their example in throwing out some confessional terror parties persuades others to reform, then the country can emerge from the ashes of the war its neighbors waged against it.

The fact is that although a year ago the prospect for 2009 was dim, today there is reason for hope. One lasting success of the surge was the movement among tribes in Anbar and other Sunni majority provinces to form parties independent from those that claimed to represent them. The leaders of these awakening councils have signed agreements to cooperate against Al Qaeda with the federal government populated by parties representing those who cleansed their co-religionists in Baghdad. A similar phenomenon is marinating now in the Shiite south. These local rebellions are the seed to newer parties committed at least to a social peace and defense of communities against the scourge of Sunni and Shiite Islamic supremacism. In March we will find out soon enough whether the awakening councils can unseat the Baghdad based parties in provincial elections. We would not bet against them. The question is whether the Democrats will.