A Wall Street Journal editorial describes the long and difficult road the United States has taken in Iraq, but now that victory is within reach, is calling us America to stay the course and win the war.

The Iraqi government is also at last beginning to meet its most important political commitments. Yesterday, Iraq's presidency council agreed to a law on provincial elections to go forward after a month's delay. The central government has passed a budget, approved a detainee amnesty, enlisted 425,000 men in its security forces and increased oil production to 2.4 million barrels a day while funneling $100 million a year to its provinces. This is happening while the number of daily insurgent attacks has been cut by about two-thirds, with commensurate declines in civilian and military casualties.

Where do we go from here? Iraq's transition to self-government remains fragile enough that U.S. forces will need to remain there in some numbers for years to come. The two countries will have to strike a long-term U.S.-Iraq military agreement, which would serve the interests of both countries. For Iraq, it would show America's continuing commitment in a rough neighborhood. And for the U.S., it would make the job of containing Iran easier. President Bush can best serve his Presidential successor by leaving enough troops on the ground to give him or her some strategic flexibility.

It is therefore unfortunate, and dangerous, that both Democratic candidates have backed themselves into a corner by endorsing rapid withdrawal from Iraq. In a speech yesterday in North Carolina, Barack Obama called for an almost complete U.S. withdrawal in 16 months. He continues to endorse the illusion that defeat in Iraq will help us prevail in Afghanistan; the opposite is closer to the truth. We will never maintain the support, either at home or abroad, to prevail in Afghanistan if we show we can be driven from the more vital strategic prize of Iraq.

In our March 18, 2003 editorial on the eve of Iraq's liberation, we supported the war while noting that "toppling Saddam is a long-term undertaking" and "the U.S. has never been good at nation-building." We wish we had been wrong on both counts, but our view has always been that nations shouldn't begin wars they don't intend to win. And newspapers don't endorse wars only to walk away when the fighting gets difficult. The U.S. sacrifice in Iraq has been honorable, our soldiers have fought superbly, and the best way -- the only way -- to honor both is to leave Iraq in victory.

A Washington Times editorial is calling on Congress to set aside partisanship and give thoughtful consideration to Gen. Petraeus' report when he comes to Congress in early April.

Gen. Petraeus is expected to issue another assessment and offer new recommendations to Congress next month, particularly as it relates to troop levels. While our mission is not yet accomplished — as al Qaeda remains a constant threat in Iraq — we urge Congress and the candidates to put principle over politics by acknowledging that the surge is working and that we need to continue to support the tough job ahead for Gen. Petraeus, our troops and the Iraqi people.

Last September when Petraeus delivered his report to Congress, he was vilified by anti-war groups such as MoveOn.org as "General Betray Us."  While Freedom's Watch effectively responded to this criticism, we agree with the Times and encourage both sides of the aisle to give level-headed consideration to his report.