I have some experience with bad timing, so let me pipe up in defense of David Brooks and David Ignatius. They were writing based on trend-lines as of 6:15 pm Baghdad time yesterday. There is no question that many of those lines were static or getting worse and their pieces understandably reflected that. Both have avoided mindless pessimism about Iraq, and I thought Ignatius’ column was especially notable because he was optimistic a few months ago about the initial efforts to put together a government when everyone else was ready to say it was doomed. No writer can include a caveat in every piece–“of course, this analysis might seem off if there is a spectacular unforeseen event for good or ill that changes the dynamic entirely.”

Whether this event will change the dynamic entirely, we don’t know. That’s where the risible clichés come in. My only answer about what the effect of Zarqawi’s death might be is to say with Tom Friedman, “the next six months will be crucial.” When his repetition of that phrase over and over was pointed out in The Corner, I said I would have agreed with him every time he said it. Some readers asked why. Because every time Friedman said it, it was true. It was and is true because Iraq has never decisively tilted one way or the other. It has seemed at times that it was on the verge of doing so (I thought it was when I wrote, “We’re Winning”), but it never has.

This is why people are wrong to say that Iraq is lost and wrong to say victory is inevitable. It is still very fluid. Events matter, leadership matters, policy matters. All of them interact in a dynamic way. That’s why you can open your New York Times and read an entirely appropriate downbeat column that is out-of-date before its ink has even dried.