We Will Lose the War on Terror

Scare headline I know, but it's true. We WILL lose the war on terror if defeatist, appeasing Democrats and the one or two malcontents in the Republican party effectively hamstring President Bush and our military.

Senator Kennedy called Iraq an "intractable quagmire" in a hearing with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld last week. This is really nothing new for old Teddy. He started braying that Afghanistan was a quagmire just a few weeks before we toppled the Taliban. He must have the word "quagmire" embedded on his word processor because he's simply cut and past it along with "another Vietnam" over to Iraq.

Nancy Pelosi, House MINORITY Leader called the war in Iraq a "grotesque mistake" claiming that it has not made America any safer. Nance, whose ideas for policies to make this nation safer, or anything else, is to "Stop him [Bush], stop him, he must be stopped!"

McCainite maverick Senator Hagel trumpets Democrat doom and gloom by saying: "The reality is, we're losing in Iraq."

How would you like to be fighting in Iraq knowing that senior representatives of both parties back home think it's a mistake and we are losing? Would you sacrifice your efforts, let alone your life for a losing cause?

The parallel here to Vietnam is one which the Democrats hoot about on a daily basis. And it may be the only apt comparison they have. Iraq will be another disaster like Vietnam if the American people lose support for the war and fail to support the troops who have sacrificed so much to bring us this far.

But there are no mass demonstrations against this war. No campus sit-ins or bombings of ROTC buildings. Other than a few socialists who refuse to allow military recruiters on college campuses, there just is no groundswell of opposition to our policies.

That could change if Democrats are succesful in undermining the American people's support for the difficult work required to implement President Bush's policy in the war on terror. And Democrats have a willing partner in the newsmedia.

At the time of this writing a simple Google search on "Iraq quagmire" yields 568,000 hits or stories where this is discussed. The news media, no longer "mainstream" but transparently hard left liberal is only too happy to amplify the very worst

No Longer A Lone Voice Shouting Into the Wind

But will such efforts succeed? In the Vietnam era, all the sources of news and information were solidly in the hands of liberals. This is no longer the case. Today, all the people, not just the ones who agree with Kennedy and Pelosi get a chance to be heard.

Talk show host J.R. shares a number of polls and stories in a Mike's America comment here which point to the fact that the American people are not going to fall into the trap of the "sky is falling" crowd who would doom this nation to failure and defeat.

Will Democrat defeatists pay a price for such stands? There is hope. Here's an excerpt from a piece by Mort Kondracke:

Negativism at Home Could Produce Defeat Of U.S. Policy in Iraq: Unless they can't help themselves, it strikes me as political madness for Democrats to declare that the Iraq war is an "intractable quagmire" or a "grotesque mistake."

If the war turns out to be a disaster - and let's pray it doesn't - then
voters will repudiate Republican foreign policy in 2006 and 2008, and Democrats will be the beneficiaries.

So why should some Democrats now be acting as though they want to see their country lose a war? Why should they say things that may undermine the morale of U.S. forces and our Iraqi allies and contribute to a U.S. defeat?

And why should they reinforce the image of their party as being so hopelessly force-averse that it can't be trusted to lead on foreign
policy?

Echoing his friend Mort's remarks, Fred Barnes had this to say:

They Still Blame America First

At the moment, Democrats are convinced the country has turned against the war in Iraq. So House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is quite comfortable declaring the war a "grotesque mistake" and boasting that she has thought so from the start. Senator Edward Kennedy felt confident enough last week to inform American generals home from Iraq that the war is an "intractable quagmire." This prompted a sharp rebuke from General George Casey, the top commander in Iraq. "You have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day," Casey said. "Senator, that is not a quagmire....

Democrats are optimistic about the 2006 election and with some reason. The country is in a sour mood. The public may have grown tired of Bush. Democrats believe they can sell the idea Republicans are abusing their power in Congress. But Democrats can't win if they're caught in the national security trap. In an era in which America is threatened by terrorists, voters are unlikely to abandon a party that's muscular on national security for a party that isn't.

Barnes has alot more to say about the issue of national security in American politics, so I recommend reading it in the entirety.

My conclusion is that we may never defeat defeatist Democrats like Kennedy and Pelosi at the ballot box. So entrenched are they in the corners of this nation where voters are willingly mislead to believe the worst about this country. However, we can and should tie Democrats running in other states and districts to the philosophy of those who lead the Democrat party in Washington. After all, even if Democrat candidate "X" claims to feel more strongly about the need for defense than Kennedy, who do you think is going to call the shots if "X" gets to Washington?