The Dems' Indefinite War

"I don't know why the president doesn't understand this war cannot proceed indefinitely," said NanPo yesterday as the House barely passed a bill to fund the war through July. Odd that she would say that, since what the Dems are designing is an indefinite war.

Will it end in July? September? June? No one would know under the Dem approach of "prove it and I'll fund it." Under the NanPo plan, which thankfully does not have a whisker's chance of becoming law, Bush must present evidence of progress by July 13. If, and that is definitely an if, he can convince the Dems, they would fund the war through September, and the process would repeat.

How can the military plan an effective strategy if they don't have any assurance they will have time to implement it? Must every strategy now be a short-term one?

How can the Iraqi government be incentivized to meet benchmarks if they aren't given realistic timeframes for success?

The Dems don't care about either the military or the Iraqis because the strategy makes brilliant sense for them. By making every other month a vote on Iraq month, the Dems get to do what they do so compulsively:

• Accuse and judge -- or judge and accuse, it doesn't really make any difference to them which order -- Bush.
  
• Create a repeating cycle of grandstanding opportunities so they are assured of getting photos like this on the tube and news:
  

• Have bi-monthly opportunities to read the polls -- a best substitute for a moral compass the Dems have -- in order to measure their rhetoric and actions, in order to keep their eyes firmly not on Iraq, but on November 4, 2008.

Again with the caveat that a bill like this will not survive a veto, fast-forward to July 13, when the President presents his case. Congress will be provided on information on the damage done to the terrorist structure, progress made by the Iraqi government, the generals' projections of what is likely to occur in the next few months, and the areas where things are not going as well.

They they will vote, and we will see people who, for the most part, have never been to Iraq and have never served in the military, vote on whether that is enough progress or not. Let's say the vote following the presentation comes out exactly like yesterday's vote: 221 elected officials think that gee, that wasn't quite enough progress in two months, so pull the plug, and 205 elected officials think this is a load of crap, that the war is bigger and more important than the Dems believe, and vote to sustain the war effort.

Is that reflective of the mandate to stop the war the Dems continually say they obtained last November? Is a swing of 16 low-level national electeds, most of them elected by cronyism, not strategic brilliance or global insight, enough to justify conceding victory to the terrorists after the tragic but extremely modest loss of fewer than 4,000 troops?

Last week, Ayman al-Zawahri, al Qaeda's #2, had this to say about the terrorists' desire to fight on:

We ask Allah that they (U.S. troops) only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson.

Yesterday, NanPo said,

We owe it to the American people to find common ground [with the White House] so we can end this war.

What makes her think she has any power to end a war that the other side wants to have continue for decades, so they can kill 300,000 of our troops? It takes two sides to end a war, especially in the Middle East, which has a long history of a vanquished people fleeing, only to be chased down and slaughtered by the victor.

And make no mistake about it. If the Dems prevail and we leave Iraq before the war is won, "victor" will not be the title we'll carry, and the true victors will not be content to stop the fight.