Livin' In America

The LA Times has decided that Iraq is a failure. The question now, for the LA Times, is "What next?"

For the Democrat party, that has to be a question with a hard moral, and easy political answer. In other words, it has an easy answer. Read on for illumination.

The Democrats believe they came to power with the support of their netroots, by opposing the way the war in Iraq was being fought. A large part of their opposition argument was the need for more troops in Iraq.

After the 2006 election, President Bush decided to take Democrat advice and increase the number of troops in Iraq.

Of course, for the netroots, the number of troops in Iraq was never an issue. It was simply a handy rhetorical cudgel. Now that the Democrats have power, the cudgel has been changed. Forget having too few troops in Iraq. Now, any troops are too many troops. All the troops must be gone, ASAP! Democrat politicians, victorious and in thrall to the netroots, are being led to that altar by the nose.

Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Obama, Kucinich, Obey, Murtha, etc., are actively opposing the surge - the only strategy on the table for improving the outcome in Iraq. They're doing so in order to repay the netroots wing of the party. In doing so, they have velcroed their future to failure for our forces in Iraq.

Since 2003, President Bush's legacy has been directly tied to success in Iraq. Now the Democrats have chosen to align their party's future with the opposite idea. It's no longer the case - as it was during the 2006 election - that Democrats will look better the worse things get in Iraq. Now, because of their opposition to the surge, Democrats will look worse the better things get in Iraq. The only way for the Democrats to win in the 2008 election is for the surge - and the effort in Iraq - to fail.

Iran is betting on this, and the laughing stock it recently made of Britain's armed forces can only have emboldened it. Iran's accelerating its nuclear program because it wants a demonstrated nuclear capability when the US fails in Iraq.

In the US, the Democrats look like they're going to be successful. The Standard Total Academic View of Iraq - echoed by the LA Times - is that Iraq's a failure, so the Democrats get to succeed with an academic and journalistic cheering section that will cover for them when the slaughter begins.

When the US runs from Iraq, I expect an immediate Iranian invasion, with a nascent nuclear umbrella to keep the world at a distance. To liberate the oppressed Shi'ite majority, or somesuch. The decadent Saudis (I served there in Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and I never saw a Saudi lift anything heaver than a billfold), unable to defend themselves, will scream for American cover, which may not be forthcoming. The Kurds will defend themselves. The Sunnis will be pushed into Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The Iranians will physically link up with Syria, giving Iran reach from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf and the Afghan border.

The next President, most likely a Democrat, will come to office facing a nuclear-armed Iranian empire on the border of (nuclear-armed) Israel - a nation Iran has vowed to annihilate. The Kurds will be defending themselves against Turks and Iranians, while millions of refugees stream across the border into Saudi Arabia, just ahead of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Morally, well, the Democrats will have sponsored hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of murders. Politically, well, they'll have the White House. Oh, and an academic and journalist class dedicated to validating them. As I said earlier, easy answer.

Me? Well, this is getting me thinking of another emigration (I came to the US from Ireland, I'm willing to head to Australia), and reminding me of a song from my childhood: McAlpine's Fusiliers.


UPDATE: Harry Reid agrees with me.