Last time I wrote on the Iraq war I used the term “defeatocrats,” and some readers thought this was name-calling. That certainly wasn’t my intent. I was simply describing those Americans who have decided that Gen. David Petraeus’ troop surge and counterinsurgency strategy cannot or will not – or should not – work. They’re intellectually or politically invested in defeat in Iraq. I employed “defeatocrat” as a synonym for defeatist, and I now regret it.

I used lower-case “defeatocrat” rather than upper-case “Defeatocrat.” But “defeatocrat” is just too close to Democrat and smacks of partisan name-calling. My bad.

I won’t apologize for “defeatist,” however. It’s a simple descriptor. It describes those who think we have already lost Iraq or our defeat is imminent, inevitable or even desirable. It’s not name-calling; it’s truth-telling. Just as President Bush should be called to account if the surge fails – just as he’s been called to account for his war failings up to now – those who have bet heavily on defeat there should be called to account if the surge succeeds.

Some defeatists are folks who actually want the Bush-Petraeus plan to fail. Unbelievable as it may be, a chunk of the public doesn’t want the plan to work – 22 percent of the general public and 34 percent of all Democrats, according to a January poll. Defeatists also include those who declared the surge a failure before all the additional troops were even in place. “I believe … this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything,” Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in April. There are also those who ignore or minimize the obvious progress on the ground in Iraq and political reconciliation at the provincial level while almost lovingly recounting every bit of bad news out of Iraq.

Rep. Brian Baird is most certainly not a defeatist, and his honest assessment of the Iraq situation illustrates why “defeatocrats,” much less “Defeatocrats,” was the wrong word choice. It’s also a cause for civic celebration.

The Washington state Democrat voted against the Iraq war in 2002 and voted for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops just last month. Baird still thinks the Iraq war is among this nation’s biggest foreign policy blunders. Yet last week he returned from his fifth visit to Iraq with two firm beliefs: One, we are making real progress. Two, pulling out precipitously would be catastrophic for the Iraqis and chaotic for the entire region and our own security. As a result, he’ll no longer vote for premature-withdrawal resolutions. He now supports continuing the surge into early next year and then engaging in a gradual redeployment.

He says some war supporters do a disservice when they exaggerate the progress. “But the facts on the ground say we are making progress …,” he told me, “and we do an equal disservice when we deny the progress.”

What Baird saw in Iraq was real synergy at work: “As we show success against the insurgents, there’s more motivation for the average Iraqis to come forward, and the more people come forward, the more success we have against the insurgents.”

Baird once thought Capitol Hill withdrawal resolutions would encourage Iraqi political reconciliation. But he’s changed his mind. Iraqis won’t step forward if they fear the political process will blow apart if the United States leaves. “When we talk about premature withdrawal,” Baird said, “we actually make it harder, not easier, for Iraqis to solve their political problems.”

Baird understands the impulse to deny any progress and wash our hands of Iraq. Many people are angry about Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and crew. “That just colors everything,” he said. “But the stakes are too high to let that color our own decision-making.”

He says both sides here need to “take a breath” and let Petraeus finish the job over there, because the alternatives to U.S. defeat in Iraq are all worse.

He knows this won’t be easy – “I know it’s going to cost hundreds of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars,” he told the Olympian newspaper in Washington’s capital – and he knows it won’t be popular with his anti-war allies. But Baird is determined to give his constituents the same brave and candid appraisal he made in opposing the war in 2002 when that wasn’t the popular thing to do.

All this Iraq war opponent is saying is give the U.S. military forces and the Iraqi people a chance.