Too Cowardly to Even Call It Retreat

Captain Ed notes this morning an open letter from Democrats calling for a "change of course" in Iraq.

Their "plan" can be summed up in two words:

• disengagement
• retreat

Specifically, they cite four points in their "new direction" for Iraq. They are:

1. transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection;
2. beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year;
3. working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and
4. convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

Lets look at what these steps actually propose.

(1) transitioning the U.S. mission in Iraq to counter-terrorism, training, logistics and force protection;

Democrats are stating that they would like for the U.S. military forces in Iraq to take a passive role in combating terrorism in Iraq. In this press release, They throw in the suggestion that U.S. forces would engage in "counter-terrorism," but that has precisely been their role from 2003 to the present. what Democrats are really advocating is their pre-9/11 mindset of counter-terrorism being a police function which is precisely the mindset practiced by U.S. presidents from both parties from the mid 1970s onward that has only emboldened terrorist groups. It was this mindset that inspired Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to think that slamming airliners into buildings on U.S soil would lead to his ultimate victory. Democrats are willing to concede this point to bin Laden, essentially stating they are willing to re-engage the same reactive approach that has consistently failed to stop the spread of terrorism for three decades. Trying something once and noting it does not work is one thing. Trying the same approach repeatedly even after that approach has been shown to be a categorical failure is the very definition of insanity.

As if their return to the failed policy of reactive counter-terrorism policing isn't passive enough, they expand on just how passive a role they advocate, reducing the American role in Iraq to training, logistics, and force protection. They would have U.S forces train Iraqi forces, but not take them into combat. They would have U.S forces provide logistics and materials to move Iraqi units around, but not use these units to engage terrorists. They would reduce American forces--the best-trained and most experienced active duty military in the world today--to training Iraqis and baby-sitting convoys and hiding in bunkers in fixed installations. Force protection is a defensive measure, designed to minimize losses to specific locations, but does nothing to hunt down and kill terrorists. Quite simply, the Democratic plan is to concede Iraq to any terrorist group that wants to take it, as long as they don't directly attack our forces.

(2) beginning the phased redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq before the end of this year;

Having conceded Iraq to any Tom, Dick, or Achmed with an Ak-47 and an attitude, the Democrats continue with their self-fulfilling prophecy of failure. As they would have our troops emasculated and reduced to a training and force protection role only, it makes no sense to have them there. Why have soldiers in-theater, if they aren't allowed to fight? And having stripping our soldiers of combat roles, they would do what no enemy force in Iraq above platoon level has ever done; force us into retreat. Of course, they call it "redeployment" to try to cover-up what it really is, but when you concede the country to the terrorists and pull all your soldiers of the battlefield and ship them elsewhere, it is a retreat. A retreat is the "withdrawal of troops to a more favorable position to escape the enemy's superior forces." Democrats apparently feel that terrorists are superior to the American military.

(3) working with Iraqi leaders to disarm the militias and to develop a broad-based and sustainable political settlement, including amending the Constitution to achieve a fair sharing of power and resources; and (4) convening an international conference and contact group to support a political settlement in Iraq, to preserve Iraq's sovereignty, and to revitalize the stalled economic reconstruction and rebuilding effort.

After stripping our soldiers of all offensive capability and then calling for their retreat, Democrats get to the real "meat" of their plan, one that hasn't changed in decades: appeasement politics. They steadfastly refuse to learn from the past, which shows that negotiating with terrorists only emboldens them. If you were a terrorist, and you saw Democrats neuter the American military and force them into retreat (something you yourself cannot do), any paper settlement is merely a formality on your way to complete victory. The Democrats, having shown that they are quite willing to take a defeat of American forces in trade for short term political gains at home, are merely looking for paper solutions so that they can have their "victory" over a weak American president. So by all means go ahead and sign anything they float your way. History shows you won't honor any agreement you sign (and in fact, not being a real government, how are they going to hold you to your agreement? "Sanctions?" Yeah, right). So by all means, go ahead and sign whatever "settlement" Democrats send you, recognizing it for what they truly are; an unconditional surrender of the mightiest military on the planet by the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party has often been criticized for not having a plan to win the war in Iraq, and this letter indicates that winning is not now and perhaps never has been part of their plan. All they offer here is a sugar-coated defeat, an abandonment of principles, and an abandonment of 25 million Iraqi men, women and children. Democrats are trying to tell you that running away from terrorists is how you beat them.

As the fifth anniversary of the greatest testament to that failed strategy nears, I'm inclined to strongly disagree.