Defeatism Here, Loyal Opposition Long Gone

The Iraq debate has taken a nasty turn.

Sen. Durbin has offended many and then tearfully semi-apologized for invoking the Hitler analogy, seasoned with references to the Gulag and Pol Pot, no less. The Dems have tried to retaliate by attacking Karl Rove's truthful characterization of the MoveOn.org and Michael Moore responses to 9/11.

More importantly, the consensus among elected Democrats has now become the call for a withdrawal timetable. In short, a turn to defeatism.

For a long time there was a tension between a "loyal opposition" stance and a defeatist one. Defeatism is now in the ascendant.

The loyal opposition stance included the following concepts, mostly erroneous, but consistent with loyalty to the country.

• A concern that the involvement in Iraq detracted from the post-9/11 attack on Osama bin Laden and his friends, Saddam the secularist being neither an Osama ally nor an Osama friend. From this standpoint, the war was a diversion.


• Criticism of the bad intelligence and lack of candor in the run up to the war.


• Criticism of bad decisions made after the initial victory, such as the failure to deal with looting, the dissolution of the Iraqi army when nothing was available to replace it, the delay in scheduling direct elections, which Ali Sistani ultimately forced.


• Rejection of the public relations circuses and lack of clarity emanating from the Administration, including the melodramatic "mission accomplished" landing by the President on an aircraft carrier.

The new stance is different:

• The demand for a withdrawal schedule, no matter what.


• Overemphasis on alleged abuses of prisoners and their holy texts in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.


• Emphasis on the "Bush lied" motif.


• A failure to recognize the accomplishments in the war, notably the elimination of Saddam's terror apparatus, the stability and relative prosperity in Kurdistan and the Shi'a south, and the progressive political isolation of the enemy, even if his ability to engage in terror remains.


• Overwrought rhetoric about all aspects of the issue.

In economics, there is a concept of "sunk costs," assets that have been spent or committed and cannot be recalled. In this war we have sunk considerable treasure, the lives and bodies of our young men, and an important part of our national standing. Although a historical assessment of the matter can be made several generations from now, the immediate question ought to be not the war's origins or even past mistakes, but what actions NOW are in the national interest.

If we consider three alternatives, immediate withdrawal, announcement of a timetable or trigger for withdrawal, or staying the course (whether that means applying additional resources, reducing the commitment according to facts on the ground, or maintaining present force levels), even a bit of analysis leads to rejecting the Democrats' alternative.

Immediate withdrawal would result either in a victory for the Ba'ath-al Qaeda forces, or more likely to a violent civil war. The government forces, Kurdish pesh merga certainly, the Shi'a militias probably, are in a position to resist the Sunni secular and religious forces, and a bloody war would ensue. No matter what the result, we would be blamed, and the withdrawal would be portrayed everywhere as a defeat.

A Middle East that was dangerous before would become more so. The replacement of the Saudi monarchy by something far worse would be likely, given the likely lack of confidence that we or anyone else would intervene to stop the collapse. If the Shi'a triumphed, it would be with the help of Iran, tying them far closer to the the Teheran régime than the Iraqi Shi'a would otherwise like to be (there being little love lost between Arabs and Persians).

The announcement of a timetable for withdrawal might be even worse. It would encourage the insurgency, convinced, as most guerrillas, unable to triumph in battle, must be, that patience and persistence will lead them to political triumph. Even more fanatics would find their way to Iraq, hopeful of picking up the spoils.

In short, unless we become convinced that there is no better outcome possible than what I've already outlined, staying the course makes sense even if one thought originally that the war was a poor idea poorly executed.

Unless I am sadly mistaken, then, the call for a withdrawal timetable is at best misguided and more likely, simply a form of defeatism, reminiscent of Clement Vallandingham and the Copperheads during the Civil War.

I have kept away from the Vietnam analogy until now, but it undoubtedly has resonance with the Ted Kennedy's of the world, who lived through Vietnam and drew the wrong conclusions from it. Truth be told, I was a radical opponent of the Vietnam war myself. Although I haven't studied it in detail, I've done some reading and have become aware of the fact that the results of our failure to assist the South Vietnamese in 1972 was the fall of South Vietnam, the departure to death an exile of hundreds of thousands of South Vietnamese, most of them ordinary people, and the genocide of over a million Cambodians.

In short, the complete withdrawal, accompanied by a refusal to offer any assistance, enforced by the Democratic Congress elected post-Watergate, was a humanitarian disaster and a geopolitical disaster for this country, even if not the "domino theory" cataclysm some foresaw.

The defeatists were wrong then, and they are wrong now. The anti-Americanism of the opposition, their harping on US wrongs and errors, real and imagined, as opposed to the enemy's very real vices, and the extremism of their rhetoric, are a real problem for this country, and for millions in the Middle East who hope for a better life.

Finally, the absence of a "loyal opposition" and the undue influence of the far Left on the Democrats are potentially disastrous. Sooner or later the opposition wins if only from fatigue from the majority, or its inevitable corruption by power. This opposition is not just mistaken, but a potential disaster for the country and the world.

The rottenness of the opposition also forces folks like me, who have many many criticisms of the Bushies, into muting these and joining the phalanx around a flawed Administration and congressional majority. That's not good for the Administration or the country.