Thoughts on Iraq

Adam Brodsky puts the problems in Iraq in perspective. We know the costs to say in Iraq, and we have a good idea of the benefits of victory. We also have a good idea of the cost of retreat and defeat, and it's tremendously higher. We need to change strategy for victory in Iraq instead of the status quo, but we can't afford retreat and defeat. But what will the Democrats do? Will they alienate their loony left, McGovern base or everybody else like liberal Connecticut which elected pro-victory Lieberman over anti-war Lamont.

It looks like Democrats' zeal to hang Iraq around Bush's neck to validate their failure in Vietnam is getting the better of them. I guess it takes courage to advocate the defeat of your own country.

Any retreat and defeat policy in Iraq will cripple American foreign policy and American self-confidence until another Ronald Reagan comes along, just like Vietnam. It would embolden the jihadists even more than retreat from Vietnam, and that anti-war victory led to the embassy takeover in Iran. Democrats don't care as long as it pins failure on Bush and the Republicans like Vietnam is pinned on LBJ and the Democrats. The only force that can defeat America is the loony left, especially it's anti-war movement.

Do you ever wonder how different the war in Iraq and the War on Terror would have gone if Democrats had entered the debate instead of continuously attacking Bush like he was the enemy, not the terrorists, while offering no ideas for victory? One of the main reasons we've had such bad single party rule is because Democrats abdicated their minority party responsibilities by vacating the field of ideas.

Drudge is reporting that a Chinese sub is stalking the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk. Our enemies are getting bolder and America is getting more timid. Right now we're losing the Cold War on Terror simply because we refuse to fight it.