On balance, I think it helps the anti-withdrawal side. It says there has been “measurable but uneven” progress and forecasts continued improvement if we continue robust counterinsurgency operations. What has been the “bottom-up” approach of the surge represents “the best prospect for improved security over the next six to 12 months.” Iraqi forces operating with coalition forces “have performed adequately, and some units have demonstrated increasing professional competence.” Deployment of Iraqi forces to Baghdad represents “significant progress since last year” when Iraqi soldiers deserted rather than leave home. It says perceptions that we will withdraw will encourage more sectarian violence, and Iraq’s neighbors “will continue to focus on improving their leverage in Iraq in anticipation of a Coalition drawdown.” And, in a key finding, “We assess that changing the mission of Coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primarily combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent AQI from establishing a safehaven would erode security gains achieved thus far.” Of course, the NIE says plenty of grim things too, but all of the above are facts that are inconvenient for the Democrats politically–and facts that they didn’t have to deal with prior to the surge. The NIE has fodder for both sides (read all the key findings here), but on balance, it is another sign that the successes of the surge are shifting the grounds of the debate over the war in a way that helps opponents of withdrawal.