The War at Home

The War at Home

by Mark Luedtke

After World War II, the United States rebuilt Japan and Germany while we also rebuilt Europe through the Marshall Plan, fought the Cold War with the Soviets, and fought a hot war in Korea. The cost in blood and treasure of those operations all at once dwarfed the cost of rebuilding Iraq, but the benefits from success are immeasurable. Japan is now the 2^nd largest economy in the world. Germany and South Korea are major economic powers and all are trading partners. America and the world are still reaping the rewards for those successes today.

Our sole failure of the period, not freeing North Korea, resulted in that country becoming a deadly prison for its own people. North Korea is a nuclear wild-card, a threat to its neighbors, our allies, and America. North Korea is an ally to Iran. We're still paying the price for our failure in North Korea. Anyone who says that successfully rebuilding Iraq isn't worth the price is either ignorant of history or lying.

We're also still paying the price for losing in Vietnam. In 1975 Democrats cut off funding for South Vietnam in a war we had for all intents and purposes already won, betraying our South Vietnamese allies to the North Vietnamese. The immediate result was the execution of our allies in Southeast Asia. Millions of people were murdered in Cambodia in the worst extermination in history. Millions of Vietnamese boat people braved the Pacific trying to escape the murderous communists.

Recognizing America's subsequent weakness from failure in Vietnam, the radical Islamic movement in Iran overthrew our ally the Shah, and then took over the American embassy. Paralyzed after Vietnam, America did nothing. In an attempt to contain the radical Iranians during the 80s, America ended up supporting Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and inadvertently strengthened another monster.

The Soviets tried to capitalize on America's post-Vietnam weakness by invading Afghanistan. The move backfired as radical Muslim fighters repelled the Soviets, but in the aftermath the Taliban gained power, and Osama bin Laden, after fighting the Soviets, used Afghanistan as al Qaeda's safe haven to plot 9/11. Bin Laden specifically adopted North Vietnamese General Giap's successful strategy for defeating the US – persisting in the slow bleed strategy until the anti-war Democrats defeat America because our enemies can't.

It's no accident we're now fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fighting Iranians on several fronts, fighting al Qaeda, and trying to contain the North Koreans so they don't sell a nuclear bomb to these terrorists. We're still paying blood and treasure in conflicts derived from our failures in North Korea and Vietnam. Understanding the consequences of failure and the benefits of success, it no longer matters why we went to Iraq. It doesn't matter how badly Bush mismanaged the war before he was thankfully spanked in the 2006 election. Bush changed course, and all that matters now is that we get it right and win.

Claims that losing in Iraq won't have historically similar catastrophic consequences are wishful fantasies. Democrats understand that if we leave Iraq, a bloodbath will result, likely consuming millions. They understand that Iran and al Qaeda will end up with significant influence in Iraq and will use Iraq's astounding oil wealth to fund more deadly attacks on Israel, Europe and the US for decades to come unless we go back and fight a far more rich, capable, deadly and possibly nuclear enemy later.

Democrats also understand that if we are successful in Iraq as in the past, we'll end up with a lasting ally with a rich economy that would be a model for the Middle East. They understand that success will significantly damage the radical Islamic movements of al Qaeda, Iran, wahhabism, and other strains of Islam. And despite what Senate majority leader Harry Reid said, that the war in Iraq is lost, Democrats know full well that we've overcome tougher problems and can still win in Iraq.

Knowing history, you would think Democrats would work for victory instead of using all their resources to defeat America. But Democrats' rhetoric gives them away: Democrats think George Bush and conservatives are more dangerous, immediate enemies than radical Islam.

The Democrats would sacrifice Iraq, allow a bloodbath, and pay the price of worse attacks and future wars because they think that if we lose in Iraq, they'll regain the Presidency, and therefore be able to appoint judges. Harry Reid has publicly stated Democrats expect to gain seats in Congress by fighting for our defeat. To Democrats, the catastrophic consequences of defeat are worth accepting.

Because Democrats can't get their liberal agenda passed through Congress, they need judges who aren't beholden to the people to push their ideology. Bush's two justices have put the activist liberals in the minority on the Supreme Court. Justifying Democrats' fears, the Court recently upheld a federal ban on partial birth abortions, significantly weakening the Roe versus Wade precedent. For Democrats, this is the immediate war, the war for their liberal ideals, and the war against radical Islam is just a tool to help them win this ideological war at home.

But Democrats are mistaken. They're taking ownership of defeat in Iraq, and Americans will remember that betrayal of trust in 2008. Democrats haven't recovered from the stigma of being weak on defense since Vietnam, but they're repeating that mistake.