It’s true – I admit it. When it comes to the Iraq War, this journalist may have gotten it all wrong. For the past year, I’ve been writing columns in this paper advocating an immediate, phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Now, however, it has become increasingly evident that such an action would be both ill-advised and, perhaps, even dangerous.Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, the multifaceted anti-war movement in this country has been split into two main camps. The first camp, it would seem, is comprised of persons who simply hate the U.S. and identify with its enemies. These persons would rather see the U.S. fail than succeed, regardless of the geopolitical costs. The second group is comprised of persons who acknowledge that a withdrawal from Iraq would bear calamitous results, but on balance, feel strongly that staying in Iraq would be even worse. While I abhor the views of the first camp, I was, for a long time, a card-carrying member of the second. So what’s changed?Well, let’s first make plain what hasn’t changed. The occupation of Iraq has been a debacle from the beginning, and its management by the Bush administration falls somewhere between “gross incompetence” and “criminal negligence.” And, to be sure, the architects of the war must assume responsibility for creating a situation in which nearly 4,000 American troops and an inestimable number of Iraqi civilians have lost their lives. But the Pavlovian vilification of everything Bush-related that’s so common now in the American social dialogue has blinded us to the startling new reality taking shape in Iraq – one which we should be welcoming: Things are getting better in Babylonia. A lot better. According to the U.S. Army, ethno-sectarian deaths are down by more than 75 percent since this time last year, mostly due to a precipitous decline in the violence around Baghdad. Attacks in Anbar province, also, are down by more than 90 percent. According to icasualties.org, an independent Web project whose calculations have been cited in the New York Times and Washington Post, December 2007 saw the fewest Iraqi fatalities since March 2005, and overall fatalities in Iraq have been in decline since early this year. Lastly, according to The Economist, there are hints of progress on the diplomatic front, as well.Much of the credit for this developing calm must go to Gen. David Petraeus. In contrast to previous American commanders in Iraq, the Princeton-educated Petraeus is methodical, deliberate and most importantly, a student of history. His main strategy – a “surge” of troops coupled with a “hearts and minds” campaign aimed at local imams – is taken directly from the playbooks of successful counter-guerrilla armies of the past. The reasons not to leave Iraq have always been obvious. An Iranian-controlled South, an al-Qaeda dominated West and an unstable capital would create a powder-keg situation in an already tumultuous region. Moreover, the withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq would serve as a rallying cry for extremists in the same way that the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan did two decades ago. Until recently, however, the other option for America – a bloody, futile struggle in a distant land – seemed even less attractive. Certainly, the current numbers don’t imply that everything’s going to be easy from now on, but at the very least, they do demand that we allow time for this trend to play out and, hopefully, result in a better world for Americans and Iraqis both.