But, in playing to their anti-war political base, congressional Democrats are pushing party orthodoxy on foreign policy further to the left.

This makes it sound as if the Dems are the one’s to blame, rather than the president who refuses to listen to anyone that does not agree with his plan. The generals have said that they don’t agree with the surge, most foreign policy experts don’t think that 21,500 troops will be sufficient to achieve the President’s stated objectives, and yet whenever the Dems or moderate Reps talk about changing the strategy, not withdrawing immediately (except for the far left) the president refuses to listen. Just last week Tony Snow was busy saying that anyone who voted for a resolution that said that the Congress opposed the surge was giving aid and comfort to the enemy. I mean, if anything his comments empowered the enemy because he basically gave them a veto on what we as Americans can and cannot do…I mean how does saying…America can no longer be the type of country where Congress can disagree with the President, helping us?

Point being, it’s not only the Dems (of which I agree there are a few like Edwards, Richardson, and even Obama) who don’t help the debate by pushing too far left, but there are others like Biden and Clinton who seem to want to find a way to get us through this mess. Yet, rather than reaching out for compromises or changes in strategy that would satisfy moderates, the president and the VP engage in these partisan tactics that just exacerbate the situation. So, yes, both parties are at fault, but we owe much of it to the chief executive.

As for this a failure in Iraq will create a haven for terrorists, including those from al-Qaida whom we are fighting there today. It will create a regional power vacuum to be filled by an increasingly emboldened Iran, which is stoking the fires in Iraq while ignoring international efforts to stop its nuclear program.

That is not necessarily true. While failure in Iraq will create a failed state, thanks to all of the intelligence services from Sunni countries and Iran, it will be an inhospitable place for al Qaeda for some time to come. Additionally, we may withdraw (if it comes to that, I’m not advocating it) but that doesn’t mean we can’t go back in and take terrorists elements out. I mean, we won’t have to worry about al Qaeda in Shiite Iraq, or Kurdish Iraq just in Anbar province. The Sunnis there, will likely be too busy defending themselves from Shiite death squads to have time to devote to joining al Qaeda or planning operations against the US. They will also likely seek to take on the Kurds over Kirkuk so again it remains a problem there, not one of the larger GWOT.

Also, while our withdrawal (if precipitous which no one is calling for other than the far left) will leave a power vaccuum that Iran may fill, that has largely already happened even with us being there. Iran is the top dog in Iraq, not the US military. I’ve argued for a different approach with Iran, Marc recently posted on the dire economic situation in Iran, and I’ve used this as a means of arguing for using our carrots to bring them out into the open. The mullahs know that their economic situation is hurting them, and they have signaled a willingness to negotiate with us. I’ve argued that we should take them up on their offer and see what we can get out of it. If anything, we can open up their economy to globalization and set them up for a soft-kill. Meaning, that as their economy becomes more integrated with the global economy, their internal rule-sets will have to line up to attract more capital, which in turn will empower the middle class and others to challenge the government directly and to reform it and so end the closed theocracy which uses isolation to further its rule.

The terrorists will challenge the United States in more places around the world while plotting to bring more turmoil to our homeland.

At some point, the nation will recapture its spirit. Taunted by our enemies or attacked directly, Americans will look to the party that is ready to respond in kind.

I think the enemy is already taunting us. They stopped our plans in Iraq, no longer are we seeking to remake Iraq into a democracy, but solely to contain Iranian power. This argument sounds so much like the administration’s argument that says that any opposition to the president is helping the enemy, or hurting our troops when in reality it is the administration’s failed policies that are hurting our troops and emboldening the enemy on a daily basis. Just look at Afghanistan, it was our success story and now it is in danger of devolving completely into chaos, attacks are increasing and the government is losing more and more control of the south. Why? because we allowed the victory we achieved to slip out of our hands. No we must recover it all over again.

As for the party that will respond in kind, that again seems like a shot at the far left of the democratic party, but they may be the most vocal but they are not the most powerful element within the party as evidenced by the fact that it is moderates and center-right democrats that gave them the victory in the November election. Saying that is so much like saying “if you elect them, we will have another terrorist attack in our country.” I’m tired of partisan shots like these, I just want an actual discussion of the issues and problems we face.

Both parties are at - nay, well past - the point where a clean break from their recent past would do them a world of good. Sadly, no such break appears forthcoming; they both seem determined as ever to win their race to the bottom. Fortunately there’s Unity08, which I have recently joined and donated some money. [Shameless plug alert - as though Unity08 doesn't already get plenty of love on this blog. :) ]