As noted in comments here, T. M. Lutas says that the Democrats' bet is looking pretty shaky:

I expect at least 3 more provinces to get handed over between now and the height of campaign season 2008. I'd like to think that at least 6 more would make the transition by then (obviating the need to explain Kurdistan's special situation in the stats). The defeatists have to change the natural progression of Iraqi government and security institution building and do it soon or they're going to be in deep trouble in 2008.

What is missing from the victory discussion concerning the four provinces handed over to Iraqis is that all of them were handed over by the UK. The United States has not ceded control of a single province during the entire war in Iraq. (The Kurdish provinces don't count, because outside forces never did control them.)

Why the difference? Britain is retreating from Iraq. Tony Blair is sending the troops home to salvage his popularity. The political dynamic of the war in Iraq is completely different in Britain than in the United States. The war there is in the lap of the liberals; it is not an ideological fortress of the conservatives as it is in the US. Moreover, the United States measures foreign loyalties partly by hospitality towards its military bases; in particular the Republicans measure Iraqi loyalty that way. Britain doesn't; it won't mind leaving Iraq completely.

Another thing that's missing is why, exactly, the defeatists are going to care about looking wrong on this. Consider the reporting on the Duke Lacrosse case and what happened when the pot bangers were demonstrated to be utterly and completely wrong. Lutas provides absolutely no reason why being utterly and obviously wrong on Iraq would be treated differently.

They don't care, AOG. That's why they are wrong, and so loudly, too. Whatever else they may be, leading Democrats are not profoundly stupid and reckless. They understand as well as anyone that the future in Iraq, as in any war, is impossible to reliably predict, and that there is a perfectly reasonable chance that they'll be dead wrong about it. Furthermore, they're certifiable experts in estimating the political costs of being wrong.

The fact that they, nevertheless, boldly stake out a position is the clearest proof you need that the experts agree with you -- that there's very little foreseeable penalty for being wrong on Iraq.

What the heck, it operates even among we citizens. Propose making a definite commitment to spend your life savings buying a house in the present dicey real-estate market, and even our local berserkers will become slow, careful thinkers, weighing the evidence, moving cautiously. That's because it has serious personal consequences. But since what happens in Iraq doesn't seem to have any important short-term consequences, people stake out the boldest of positions after 0.3 seconds total thought. Human nature, I guess. We're all nuanced and thoughtful when it comes to local, highly personal issues. When it comes to grand far-off stuff, we turn into characters from The Ten Commandments or really The Life of Brian.

what was Lutas saying 4 years ago?

What makes him right now?

Britain got responsibility for those four provinces because:

They were most familiar with them -- GB used Basra as a base of operations in WW1 and WW2.

Second, they were forseeably the easiest to deal with among the 15 Arab provinces. Why? No Sunni dead-enders. Saddam's base of support was always among the Sunni tribes.

Finally, except Basra's province, they are pretty sparsely populated. Something about scarce water, or swampland makes it so.

So, folks, there you have it. The US took on the toughest part of Iraq, and lo and behold, it is the area that is lagging other provinces in handover.

Ta ta,

MG

what was Lutas saying 4 years ago? What makes him right now?

You know, this whole business of consistency is highly overrated. Anyone who hasn't changed what they think or say on Iraq in four years -- while observing four long years of unexpected events -- is an ideological robot, someone whose attitudes are determined by pure philosophy without any regular input from reality.

Furthermore, anyone who hasn't made a mistaken prediction on Iraq is either absurdly lucky or just issues bland Obamatron pablum ("Tomorrow will be a new day! Life is full of challenges we must meet! Only when we all work together can we accomplish what working together can achieve! Black is black! Fire is hot!" etc.).

MG, to the democrats Iraq is Iraq. Doesn't matter north, south, east or west. Doesn't matter if it's Sunni held or Shite held. Doesn't matter where the politically symbolic capital is. No tactical consideration based on the military and/or geopolitical situation matters.

All that matters to the democrats is the ability to point and say "look, the Brits are doing x, y or z so why doesn't Bush do the same".

Shinseki was right on Iraq.