The Moral Calculus in Iraq

Do you want to desert this woman?

Today, General Lynch, one of those helping lead the surge in Iraq, brought out one element of the Iraq debate that is too often overlooked:

[General Lynch] implied that an early withdrawal would amount to an abandonment of Iraqi civilians who he said had rallied in support of the American and Iraqi troops, and would leave the civilians exposed to renewed brutality by extremist groups. "When we go out there, the first question they ask is, 'Are you staying?'" he said. “And the second question is, ‘How can we help?’ ” He added, “What we hear is, ‘We’ve had enough of people attacking our villages, attacking our homes, and attacking our children.’ ”

Well, no kidding. And all the Democrats and defeatist Republicans who want to cut 'n run now are relegating the brave people who have fought for freedom to the tender mercies of Al Qaeda.

Those who opposed the war from the start have no particular moral obligation besides that of common humanity. But the Dems and Republicans who voted to overthrow Hussein and encourage the establishment of a free state in the heart of the Middle East must, at least, acknowledge that retreating now would be an unbelievably brutal, ugly and dishonest act.

The left has harshly criticized the first President Bush for encouraging the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein and then pulling the plug on them, leading to a slaughter. Ironic, isn't it, that what they want to do is a thousand times worse?