"Fraying" Republicans?

This report discusses the intra-party controversy over Iraq among Republicans.

Surely Majority Leader Boehner's characterization of the waverers as "wimps" is accurate, but not terribly helpful. It strikes me the debate should center, not on the character (or lack thereof) of those whose knees are going weak, but rather on the character of our enemies and, above all, the national security of the United States.

I will never agree with the Republican senators like Pete Domenici, who wants to abort the surge just as it's really getting underway. I could, however, respect his point of view if he's willing to answer a couple of questions:

(1) Does withdrawing from Iraq enhance America's national security? If so, how?

(2) Is Iraq the central front in the global war on terror? If not, what accounts for Ayman Al Zawahiri's characterization of it as such?

(3) If we withdraw from Iraq, what contingency plans are/should be made to deal with the fallout: The slaughter of those who supported a democracy; intervention on behalf of the Sunnis by Saudi Arabia, from Turkey in the North, and by Iran on behalf of the Shiites; the enhanced likelihood of a nuclear Middle East?

Members of the surrender caucus who are willing to engage these questions deserve at least some grudging respect. The problem is that none of the defeatists seem willing to discuss the larger implications of their frenzied desire to cut 'n run, whatever the cost. And until they can offer credible answers to the questions above, they don't deserve to be taken seriously.