The president's "New Way Forward" in Iraq has been dismissed by many as nothing more than more of the same. President Bush has been chastised for sending more brave soldiers to fight a "failed war." He has been ridiculed for ignoring the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Members of his own party are now questioning his leadership. Sen. John Kerry has even dusted off his Vietnam-era slogan of "How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake?"

Actually, this whole notion that this new strategy is equivalent to "stay the course" is a lie, pure and simple. It is a lie that has been furthered by irresponsible members of Congress and the media who have been blinded to reality by their hatred for President Bush.

In truth, the new way forward is a very real change in strategy that is in large part the result of input from the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.

Before Gen. Petraeus took command, once an area had been cleared of insurgents or terrorists, the soldiers simply moved on to the next enemy-held region. That is no longer the case. Now when an area is cleared by coalition forces– American and Iraqi — some soldiers are left in place to ensure that it does not fall back into enemy hands. In addition, the number of trainers for the Iraqi army has also increased.

The Army is constantly changing and adapting its tactics and techniques for dealing with the insurgency. Gen. Petraeus was in command of the 101st Airborne when it captured the city of Mosul in northern Iraq at the beginning of the war. Under his leadership and tactics, the city was moving fast toward self-sufficiency and security. It was only after Gen. Petraeus was rotated out of Mosul that violence in the city erupted.

The bottom line is that the strategy has changed and now we have a man in command who has actually gotten results in Iraq before. If anyone can lead our forces to victory, surely it is Gen. Petraeus.

Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress do not want to give him that chance. A majority in both the House and the Senate are opposed to the troop surge. Many say it is needlessly putting American lives at risk and ignoring the facts on the ground in Iraq. Yet while all of this is going on, Gen. Petraeus — the man who is asking President Bush for the additional troops — was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Why would they do that?

The answer is simple: The Democrats in Congress are cowards.

Others may not want to say it, but that is exactly what they are. They refuse to do anything of substance on the war, instead opting to pass meaningless resolutions and wring their hands about the war's futility. They almost universally condemn the surge yet confirm its architect. They claim to support the troops while some threaten to remove their funding.

If the Democrats believe President Bush is wrong, then they should stop funding the war. They should not pass resolutions that have no meaning other than to stick a knife in the back of the troops — "We support you, we just don't think you can win."

Yesterday, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that British forces in southern Iraq would be reduced substantially over the next several months, prompting a parade of democratic, presidential hopefuls to proclaim that we must do the same. This time, it is the Democrats who are showing their ignorance. Southern Iraq, specifically Basra, is not Baghdad. Even when I was there in 2005, the south was by far the most stable and secure region in Iraq. The city of Basra is almost entirely Shi'a — as opposed to the very diverse population of Baghdad — and therefore more easily secured.

I take criticism of the war personally because I spent a year of my life serving all over Iraq in a transportation unit. There have been mistakes made in planning and tactics, but this is not a lost cause and progress has been made. In the year I was there, Iraqis participated in three national elections. Schools, bridges, hospitals and infrastructure of all kinds were improved or rebuilt. The violence may be bad, but I assure you the enemy we face is as cold-blooded and evil as any in our history. Were we to retreat now — before victory is achieved, and by victory I mean a free and stable Iraq — our terrorist enemies would only be emboldened to strike.

In the end, this is a war that we can win. If it is lost it will not be by our military, but by ignorant and weak politicians that wish for the false hope of a peace through withdrawal rather than hard-won victory.

Mike Hahn ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and political science.