VDH on Surging Criticism

Victor Davis Hanson is probably my favorite historian and, without a doubt, my favorite registered Democrat college professor from California. He wrote the following on his website about President Bush's plan to surge troops in Iraq:

All the requisite points were made by the president, almost as if [he] were quoting verbatim Gen. David Petraeus’s insightful summaries of counterinsurgency warfare — an Iraqi face on operations, economic stimuli, clear mission of clearing terrorists out of Baghdad, political reform, a “green-light” to go after killers — while addressing the necessary regional concerns with Syria and Iran.

But why believe that this latest gamble will work? First, things are, by agreement, coming to a head: this new strategy will work, or, given the current politics, nothing will. Second, the Iraqis in government know this time Sadr City and Baghdad are to be secured, or it is to be “see ya, wouldn’t want to be ya,” and they will be on planes to Dearborn.

VDH also said this in regard to the Democrats' response:

Finally, note the pathetic Democratic reply by Sen. Durbin, last in the public eye for his libel of American troops (as analogous to “Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others”). There was no response. Durbin simply assumed credit for the Bush policy of deposing Saddam, fostering democracy, and then blamed the Iraqis and said enough was enough. Not a word followed about the effects of a rapid withdrawal. In other words, the Democratic policy is that anything good in Iraq they supported, anything bad they opposed. And they will now harp yet do nothing — except whine in fear the surge might actually work.

Most anti-war people I know are generally tired and squeamish about the war, or about war in general. The majority of those I know who want to "come home now" can not articulate the major components of this conflict or project what may realistically happen if they got what they were asking for. They just sincerely want the dying to stop and everything to be "better" somehow, though they lack a coherent plan to secure those wishes.

But some folks, like Sen. Durbin, know exactly what the consequences would be. They understand that there are no easy choices (except in hindsight) and that their proposals might seriously hurt our country. So why would they continue to propose the cut & run, blame ourselves first, everyone for themselves policy? I have a theory about that: They think we can take it.

It's okay to encourage defeat in foreign wars, they believe, because the only real casualties will be their political enemies. The "defeatists" believe we can survive a loss or two and perhaps we need to lose for instructive purposes. After all, it's far more important to demonstrate how evil American capitalism, Western hegemony, the military and all military action truly are.

They say they support the troops but what they imply is that they pity the martyrdom of these soldiers who die for an unjust cause. You can tell this because, though they might talk about brave soldiers, they'll never celebrate heroism, especially if it were to inadvertently glorify the cause being fought for. Remember, fighting for what's right is wrong in the first place.

I truly believe that some people believe we can weather losing a war or two and that doing so will serve their ideological purposes. And how wrong is that?