Why We Must Stay & Why We Must Win

Only a few short weeks after urging her caucus to vote against Congressman John Murtha’s plan to withdraw from Iraq, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi turned around and endorsed that plan last week. "We should follow the lead of Congressman John Murtha, who has put forth a plan to make America safer, to make our military stronger, and to make Iraq more stable."

With all due respect to Rep. Pelosi and Congressman Murtha, how in the world would abandoning Iraq at this juncture make America stronger and safer and Iraq more stable? How would admitting defeat in the central front in the war against Islamo-fascism in any way accomplish any of these?

Surrender in Iraq would embolden the bin Ladens and Zarqawis, as well as their radical brethren, to extend their reach far beyond Iraq’s borders. There would be an immediate elevation in operations against the United States throughout the world and an invigorated insurgency within Afghanistan would be one of the most obvious and prominent examples of this.

Iraq itself would immediately degenerate into a haven and base for al-Qaeda to launch operations throughout the region and the world. Iraq’s still faceless and fledgling government would be indisposed to combat this and the country would fall into anarchic chaos.

Moreover, America’s foreign enemies and rivals—China, Russia, North Korea, Iran—are closely surveying our actions in Iraq. If we remain until victory is achieved we will demonstrate a strength and resolve they will be hesitant to challenge in the future. If we leave, the opposite will be true. The United States will look increasingly weak and vulnerable at a time when China and even India are burgeoning and asserting themselves increasingly more on the geopolitical stage.

An exodus from Iraq would also shatter all the progress that has been made, both within Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Iraqis have turned out by the millions, under the shroud of violence and the threat of death, to elect a government to write a constitution and then to ratify that constitution. In little over a week they will go to the polls for the third time this year to elect the new faces that will makeup Iraq’s new constitutional and democratic government.

The trademarks of a democratic society are already there: a free and vibrant press, an independent judiciary, a strong bill of rights. Roads, hospitals, and schools have been and are currently being built.

The Iraqi military grows stronger and more competent everyday. Iraqi forces fight side by side with our own troops and some are even able to operate independently. In his editorial of last week Sen. Joseph Lieberman pointed out that the "Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on it’s own."

The birth and spread of democracy in Iraq has had repercussions throughout the broader Middle East. Saudi Arabia has held elections at the municipal and provincial levels. Egypt held it’s first multi-party elections earlier this fall. Libya has abandoned it’s nuclear weapons program. Afghanistan has elected a permanent government. Syria has left Lebanon and is increasingly isolated.

None of this progress would have been possible were it not for America’s actions in Iraq, and were America to leave it would all be in jeopardy. Democrats in the region would become isolated. Arabian autocrats and dictators would no longer be under pressure and the prevailing air of democracy would once again be replaced by the stench of despotism and oppression. All momentum would be reversed.

The progress of democracy has only just begun in the Middle East, and there is still much progress to be made. To leave now would set this movement back decades, if not more.

American leftists and their Democratic cohorts in congress often speak of the supposed parallels that exist between Iraq and Vietnam. Well if the United States were to leave Iraq prematurely we would be replicating the same tragedy of Vietnam.

In the twilight of America’s involvement in Vietnam the North Vietnamese, like the insurgency of today, had been mostly defeated. The North’s invasion of the South in 1972, designed to crush public support for the war within America, had been crushed by the South, who had fought bravely with the support of American forces, also like the Iraqi forces of today. On January 23, 1973 the North had even signed an agreement with America ending the war.

However American forces were withdrawn prematurely and congress cut off support for the Southern government. Unable to support themselves, Saigon fell shortly thereafter.

The tragedy of Vietnam was not that nearly sixty thousand Americans died, it was that nearly sixty thousand Americans died for nothing simply because the nation’s political leaders failed to support the people and the government those men had died for the benefit of.

To retreat from Iraq would be to replicate this same tragedy. It would amount to a betrayal of the over two-thousand servicemen and women who have given their lives and the thousands of others who have been injured. These men and women have sacrificed their everything so that Iraq may be free and America may be safer. Should we leave Iraq now they will have died in vain. They will have demonstrated "the last full measure of devotion" for nothing because the country they fought and died for shamefully lacked the courage to honor their sacrifice by finishing the job they had died to carry out.

May we all pray that day never comes, that America will honor her fallen sons and daughters as well as the commitment we have made to the Iraqi people by seeing the task through until the task is done.

We must stay and we must win. The costs of doing otherwise are simply too tragic to bear.

Hat Tip: Victor Davis Hanson, Sen. John Kyl, James Q. Wilson

Sen. McCain & the '08 Election

Sen. John McCain is a political rock star. His penchant for speaking his mind regardless of whether he is toeing the party line or not has endeared him to the national media and the American people. Some might call it shooting from the hip while others may describe it as speaking candidly. Either way his straight-talk is something that clearly resonates with and appeals to the American public.

That Sen. McCain is a virtual lock to win the general election in ‘08 should he indeed run is almost beyond dispute, no matter who the Democratic nominee might be. Sen. McCain appeals to people from all sides of the aisle, and if public perception of the U.S. effort in Iraq continues to remain negative (perception and reality are two different entities in this case) Sen. McCain would be the ideal candidate.

Ross Douthat aptly points out that "when Americans sour on a military conflict, they don’t usually elect outspoken doves—they elect politicians with hawkish credentials who insist they’ll bring the war to a successful conclusion." Sen. McCain fits this mold perfectly—his criticism of the post-war management yet steadfast support of the general war effort gives him this. More on this later.

To ever reach the general election however Sen. McCain will need to earn the support of his own party. Though he is loved by those on the left and center, the right views him tepidly. He has frustrated conservatives and Republicans in the past for a host of reasons. He co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in 2002, a bill which raised serious First Amendment Concerns. His leadership in the "Gang of Fourteen" deal last spring angered many conservatives anxious to end senate filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.

To be fair, the compromise has led to the up-or-down vote and eventual confirmation of many qualified jurists. Nominees such as Priscilla Owen, Janice Rodgers Brown, and William Pryor, having been previously filibustered, now sit on the bench as a result of the compromise.

To be the nominee in ‘08 Sen. McCain will need Republican primary voters to vote strategically. If Republicans fear the Democratic nominee will win the general election Sen. McCain’s stock will soar. The only question is if Republicans will care more about philosophical and ideological purity or winning.

Sen. McCain’s main objective from this point forward, if he is indeed running, is to diminish as much as possible this dilemma. In other words, the less Republicans feel like they are compromising philosophical values for political strategy if and when they cast their vote for Sen. McCain the better. He needs conservatives to be comfortable with him, to view him as more than just the candidate of last resort, as one of them.

If the senator fails to become this he will be a servant of circumstance, his fate resting in areas beyond his control. He will need several dominos to fall into place. The country would have to be dissatisfied with Republicans and at least hospitable to Democrats(the populace is dissatisfied with both parties right now). The GOP field will have to be weak, or perceived to be, and one candidate will have to be steam-rolling through the Democratic primaries, one deemed unstoppable by national Republicans. The national mood will have to be dour and the electoral field conducive to a Democratic victory—i.e. a sluggish economy, trouble in Iraq, Bush fatigue, etc.

The dominos may very well fall into place perfectly like this, but they just as easily may not. Basing one’s presidential aspirations on a series of if’s is certainly not the way to go.

I’m sure Sen. McCain understands this. Just last week he told AP that the Republican party must highlight "progress in Iraq" as well as develop a "comprehensive energy package" and "stop this profligate spending"---words conservatives and Republicans love to hear.

National Republicans and conservatives are frustrated with Washington Republicans as much as the broader American public, especially over shameless federal spending. Come ‘08 they will be looking for the candidate who will promise fiscal discipline and victory in Iraq, as well as nominate constitutionalists to the bench and shore up the Mexican border.

To gain Republicans’ confidence and their nomination though will require much more than paid lip service on these issues. Sen. McCain’s record in the senate will count just as much as his stump speech rhetoric.

On the issue of fiscal responsibility Sen. McCain does have some credibility. He supported a recent amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma that would have transferred federal funds from the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska to more important projects along the Gulf Coast. In addition, Sen. McCain has received an 88% rating from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.

His obstinance on cutting taxes could prove to be a sticking point however. He has chastised the president and Republicans for cutting taxes in times of war, an unpopular position within a pro-tax cut, pro-growth party. Whether or not he plans to cut taxes or even keep them at current levels is a question that is sure to pop up often on the primary campaign trail.

No one can question Sen. McCain's determination and willingness to stay in Iraq for as long as necessary. He has criticized some of the administration’s post-war management it is true, but his support for the general effort has never wavered and cannot be questioned:

"America's first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission. Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory."

Critiquing decisions made and strategy employed in Iraq’s post-war management is an entirely legitimate and healthy exercise. I highly doubt conservatives would find Sen. McCain’s call for more troops over there objectionable anyway.

Sen. McCain’s judicial philosophy and the type of judge he would look for if he were president is unclear. For obvious reasons it is impossible to tell what kind of judge he would nominate until he is actually in a position to do so. This issue too will pop up frequently throughout the primaries.

Another liability for the senator may be his border proposal. Republicans are demanding stricter security along the U.S.-Mexican border, the senator’s proposal focuses more on dealing with illegal aliens already in the country as opposed to preventing more from entering. I endorsed the senator’s idea, but concerns that it doesn’t adequately address border security are legitimate.

Whether Sen. McCain is able to overcome this liability and others come Iowa and New Hampshire is the million dollar question. He would be a strong and almost unbeatable general election candidate—any Democrat would be hard-pressed to overcome his across-the-aisle appeal and sheer integrity.

Getting his fellow Republicans to give him their nomination will be the test. Due to growing public concern over Iraq and perceived Republican corruption in congress many analysts believe Sen. McCain’s stock is rising among conservatives and Republicans. Maybe, maybe not. If so, and it is these reasons which are motivating a change of heart, than it is a result of the strategic motivations I highlighted earlier. He is only the pragmatic political choice, not the one whom inspires or captures the imaginations of Republicans.

Time will tell if he can change this.

Extra Hat Tip: Tom Bevan