Embracing Defeat

So, we’ve heard from the party of the left that they want a new policy for the war in Iraq. Remember the run up to the elections? They were incensed that we needed more troops. They demanded that the President acknowledge mistakes and take responsibility. They wanted a clear statement of intentions. They wanted to hear a plan for the Iraqi government to handle security. “Step up so we can step down.” That’s what the election was about. That’s the mandate. That’s what the President did last night—at least as I watched the speech that appears to be what he did.

So, why then did we have to watch Dick Durbin come out immediately after with his simpering defeatist complaints? The President sounded pretty clear to me, but Durbin and the Democrats seem to demand defeat. They don’t care about the lives that have been sacrificed for the mission—they say they do, but to walk away from the battle at this point would be surely to underscore for the future the fact that America will never back up her troops again. The Democrat’s position seems to be that there is nothing worth fighting for, nothing worth dying for in this world. They might find a reason at some time in the future to apply military force, but if this war and the Vietnam experience demonstrate anything it is that they will then abandon the effort and undercut the sacrifice as soon as it becomes politically efficacious.

What do the Democrats want in terms of a policy? Do they have a coherent plan beyond total abandonment of the field of combat and huddling behind our oceans waiting for the next jihadist to situate himself in a crowd and claim his 72 virgins? Do they want a timetable for withdrawal on a date certain? Well, sometime they do but usually even they are smart enough to realize that isn’t reasonable. Emotional, yes, but reasonable? No.

Do they want more troops in the field? Well, I’ve heard them say it. Remember their regular and consistent pointing at General Shinseki’s comments about the insufficiency of the deployed force? They wanted more troops for the job. That’s what they regularly faulted Don Rumsfeld for—not giving the generals what they needed in terms of manpower. So, the Prez says five more brigades, but they’re unhappy.

Do they want the Iraqi security forces to be at the tip of the spear? That’s what they’ve said and that apparently is what the Prez has stated will be the policy. But, they’re unhappy.

Do they want us to deal with Muqtada al-Sadr? Who wouldn’t? Let’s admit that the core of the conflict today is a Shia’ majority redressing years of grievances against the Sunni Baathist regime. The Mhadi militia, with the urging of the Iranians, is stoking the fire of civil war. They see a power vacuum with Sadaam gone and the constitutional government weak. If they can seize power now, the Iranians will be happy, they will be in control and the US will be embarrassed. What’s not to like about that outcome? It seemed that the President said last night that this is going to be a focus. We’ll be supporting the Iraqi Army in controlling Sadr city. But, the Dems are unhappy about that.

I want to know the Democrats plan. I want to know what they would do instead. I want to hear more from them than the incessant whining that the people are demanding something different, but they don’t tell us what. It’s time for them to stop telling us we’ve got a problem and now tell us that they’ve got a solution. If they aren’t happy with the President’s admission of past errors, acceptance of responsibility and proposal for handling the situation, they need to provide a viable alternative. It’s got to be something more than a Cindy Sheehan rant about bringing the troops home now. It’s got to provide some semblance of a solution and it better come with a description of why their idea is better than what I heard last night.

Frankly, I don’t think I’m going to get that.