Dickering Over the Terms of Surrender

So the Democrats have come up with their latest plan for defeat in Iraq -- specifically, a proposal that would require the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008 (or sooner if the Iraq government doesn't meet some unspecified security "benchmarks".)

This proposal once again shows the naivete, defeatism or paucity of imagination that too often characterizes the Democratic approach to national security. It doesn't take a psychic or a strategic genius to understand the impact on our enemies of a date-certain withdrawal. It sends the message that our commitment is wavering, and that all the terrorists need do is wait until autumn 2008, and they may then run wild. It's likewise a measure that would inevitably force failure in the interim, because what Iraqi is going to risk the ire of the extremist elements by helping to secure the country, with full knowledge that, 18 months or so from now, he'll be totally unprotected against terrorist reprisal?

It's remarkably cynical that the Democrats hope to buoy political support for this cynical ploy by adding money to the spring offensive against the Taliban. Does any Democrat really believe that the terrorist forces arrayed against the US in Afghanistan are significantly different than those in Iraq? The only difference between the two countries is that Iraq has much more significant strategic importance in the Middle East than does Afghanistan, and that the Taliban in Afghanistan openly harbored Osama bin Laden. While instructive, those contrasts are at this point essentially irrelevant to America's national security, which would be threatened by surrendering Iraq to Islamofascist extremists.

Do the Democrats not get it, or do they just not care? And if -- Heaven forbid -- the Democrats do get their way, are they not aware that taking the issue of Iraq off the table could accrue to the significant benefit of a Republican presidential candidate in autumn of '08?