It's hard to believe that only two years ago — before our successful counterinsurgency in Iraq — Democrats in Congress would criticize the war by bemoaning the fact that President Bush ignored his generals. How times change. Instead of listening to the commander in Iraq, leaders of the majority caucus in Congress have spent the better part of a year insisting that General Petraeus was delivering disingenuous reports about progress. They've been second-guessing him at every turn. Senator Reid went so far as to contradict our generals and declare the war was lost.

Now they are preparing to ambush General Petraeus when he goes next month before the Armed Services Committee for his promotion to Central Command. It's unlikely the Democrats will be able to block his promotion. But they will have to straddle a line so as to appease a base that wants to depict the general as a liar. One can imagine it going something like this:

Senator: Would you agree, General, that the main threat to our national security is Al Qaeda?

General: Yes, sir.

Senator: And is Al Qaeda not based in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan?

General: Yes, sir. It is.

Senator: So shouldn't we withdraw troops from Iraq and send them to Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda?

General Petraeus will likely respond that Al Qaeda is also in Iraq. While its presence is diminished there, it remains a threat to which the fighting now in Mosul attests. Also, while it's true that Qaeda's central leadership is based in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan, the implication of the anti-war logic is that the anti-war camp favors invading an American ally.

That is preposterous. For the most part, the Democrats also believe that the presence of our soldiers in foreign lands fuels the recruitment of the enemy. Would this somehow change if more of our GIs were camped out in Afghanistan? In fact, there is a more straightforward argument for sending more soldiers to Afghanistan — the elected government is losing territory to a resurgent Taliban.

One can imagine that the multi-lateral-minded Democrats who bemoan a "go it alone" foreign policy might seek more NATO forces for the battle of Afghanistan. But if it is a moral hazard for the Iraqi government, as many Democrats say, to time our withdrawal based on ground conditions and not an arbitrary timeline, then would it not also present a moral hazard for the Afghan government, let alone our NATO allies? If the Iraqi government must learn not to rely on American soldiers for their security, shouldn't also the Afghan government? Both countries still face dangerous terror insurgencies.

The real story here is that Democrats see General Petraeus as a threat to the withdrawal they seek at any cost in Iraq. Both senators Clinton and Obama have promised to consult the commanders before authorizing the retreat they promise on the campaign trail. Three months ago it looked like some forces inside the Pentagon, such as the outgoing Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, might succeed in removing General Petraeus from the Iraq conversation by sending him to NATO in time for the next administration.

It turned out that it was Admiral Fallon who lost his job, after he allowed a GQ Magazine reporter follow him around the Middle East and quote him disparaging the White House. It is General Petraeus who will take command of the theater that encompasses the hottest fronts in the current global war on Islamist terror. Unlike Admiral Fallon, General Petraeus does not favor withdrawing combat brigades from Iraq absent the right conditions.

* * *

A half year ago it would have been likely that the Democrats, understanding the potential risk the new general poses to their withdrawal strategy, would try to sink his nomination. But something like this was tried last September when General Petraeus reported to Congress on the progress of his surge. Moveon.org took out a full-page, discounted ad in the New York Times calling him "General Betray-us." Senator Clinton said his testimony required her "willing suspension of disbelief." It backfired. The Democrats looked petulant, and the party dropped its efforts to de-fund the war. Now the Democrats will try to extract from General Petraeus a pledge he is loathe to make. Afghanistan is no doubt important. But so is Iraq, and the thing to watch is whether the Democrats can drive him off that point.