Fighting the War On Terror and Lacking Principles

Earlier this week, with my brother in Iraq and my brother-in-law getting ready to go, my mother and I talked about what will happen after the presidential election. She seems to think that if Hillary or another Democrat wins, we will get out and if the GOP wins we will stay in. I responded by saying that we will have a presence, it will be a big presences but shuffled around. The effect of the shuffling is hard to predict, but it won't be what we see today.

The reasons are simple--even under Democratic leadership, the U.S. cannot afford to lose face in the eyes of the world to a bunch of self-destructive, extremist rage mongers. To do so will not only weaken our position abroad, but will weaken our position at home. No matter what the next president's thoughts are on the Bush policies in Iraq, they will not be able to escape the fact that they have inherited the problem and must deal with the situation as it is, not as they wanted it to be during the campaign.

To be sure, a new strategy and tactics will no doubt be explored and probably need to be explored even now. But simply abandoning Iraq will solve no problems in the region and really just exacerbate a society teetering on lawlessness.

If Democratic claims as to the situtation in Iraq are to be taken at face value, that Iraq is involved in a civil war, then removing the only force capable of imposing any kind of security or safety for that majority of the population consigns those who are simple innocent bystanders to a longer period of misery, followed by unimaginable death and ultimately another form of Islamic inspired dictatorship. While it may be arguable as to whether the United States is capable of extending peach and security on a wide scale absent active engagement of a solid government, not being in place guarantees failure and death.

But one wonders what kind of leadership the Democratic candidates can exert on the matter. Democrats have taken as a point of pride that they follow the lead of the rest of the "civilized world" and prefer a hands off approach to Iraq. But as Philip Mella writes:

Further, other than Senator Joseph Lieberman, no one seems willing to declare that if we have evidence that Iran is providing munitions used to kill American soldiers it will result in a military strike. We seem to have succumbed to the fear that if we attack our enemies it will incite them, which is a patently defeatist strategy. The same anemic approach seems to be in play in many of our negotiations which begin by asking the enemy how many concessions they're willing to accept.

No nation ever won a war by predicating its strategy on a degree of capitulation. This, of course, is like no war America has ever fought and it could not have happened a worse moment in its history, one where principles and the resolve that emanates from them are endangered, creating a dangerous leadership vacuum.

Our choices are few and our prospects aren't terribly encouraging, but one thing is certain: If the Democrats win the White House in 2008 we can be assured that America will become just another political proxy of the EU, a docile and subservient lapdog, obliged to ask permission before defending its sovereignty.

Democrats, of course, would deny that, but judging by their performance in Vietnam, not to mention the 1990s, during which the Clinton Administration gutted the military and effectively ignored the nascent terrorist threat, their counterarguments are less than convincing.

As the presidential primary season presses closer to us, we are going to need some details from all candidates on what they would do in Iraq and so far, we have heard nothing but platitudes and soundbites attacking the Bush policy. Any moron can be against a policy, it takes a real leader to announce plans and formulate strategies. I hope we are not left with a moron in the White House in January 2009.