In the past few weeks, in the aftermath of the Immigration Debacle, and in the post-mortem of the Bush Administration, Republicans have been attempting to distance themselves from this man and anything tainted with his political poison.  Three prominent Republicans, Pete Dominici of New Mexico, Lugar of Indiana, and Voinovich of Ohio, have decided it would be politically expedient to abandon the President on the War in Iraq.  Other rumblings about this are coming from all over the political spectrum.  And some members of the base, unforgiving on the Immigration mess, have so little respect left for the President, that they are unwilling to defend anything he does, including continue prosecution of the war.  But the war goes beyong the President.  The war should go beyond politics.  Now,  The New York Times, which has been able to call itself neutral by not explicitly calling for withdrawl, has decided to join the chorus.  Its editorial is linked here:      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

This is nothing new, they have been critical of the war all along.  I think the difference is, with 50 Democrats and a growing minority of Republicans, they see a glimmer of hope that they can cut off funding and impose a withdrawl.  They also see that the anger of the Right on immigration brought about results.  Senators did not dare to oppose the popular opinion on the immigration issue, their phone lines and e-mail in boxes were completely overloaded.  They feel that if they can generate this kind of passion on the war issue beyond just the left fringe, maybe they can get it to go away.

Here is the problem.  The Times acknowledges that Iraq has the potential to dissolve into a chaotic blood bath with the withdrawl of American troops, and even worse, descend into a regional war, perhaps involving as many as a dozen nations.  Unlike Vietnam, we the people have access to international sources, to 24/7 news, and the odds that we won't notice the Middle Eastern version of the fall of Saigon is very unlikely.  When Baghdad falls, the childish angry masses will look for a scapegoat, and they want this to happen to Bush, not a Democratic successor.   They make some vague calls for the neighbors of Iraq to take some responsibility and "help out",  but just like Vietnam, they don't really care who is hurt and how badly, as long as America is gone and as long as it can all be blamed on Bush.

So lets revisit the issue.  What were the preconditions of our being in Iraq? 
1) Iraq started all of this in 1990 when it invaded the sovereign nation of Kuwait.
2) Iraq had used Chemical Weapons both on its own people and on Iran.
3) Iraq had committed acts of genocide against its Kurdish and Shi'ite minorities
4) Iraq had sent weaponry, financial support, and encouragement to the suicide bombers of the Intifada.  Saddam also had financially and logistically supported groups including Al Qaida.
5) Iraq had agreed to a ceasefire and to inspections of its WMD programs.  Iraq also accepted the imposition of No Fly Zones in its North and South.  It violated either 14 or 17 UN resolutions in defying all of these things it had agreed to.
6) Iraq had a WMD program as recently as 1998.  It had used Chemical weapons and pursued others.  All major world intelligence services believed with reason that Iraq intended to continue, expand, and imrove this program as soon as it was able.

What were the goals of our Iraq invasion?
1) Remove Saddam Hussein from power.
2) Capture and punish the leadership of the Saddam Regime and punish them for their crimes
3) Bring to Iraq a stable elected government, governed by a constitution and an elected assembly of some sort.
4) Create in Iraq a model of the process that could peacefully be employed elsewhere in the region to democratize and modernize Arab and Muslim nations.
5) Create conditions of stability that would allow this new elected nation to take the neccesary steps to modernize and regularize its Democratic institutions.

What is the progress of our Iraq invasion?
We have accomplished the first three of our five goals.  The lack of stability is our main problem.

So how do we accomplish number five, which would cause number four to exist?
1) Root out cells of terrorists:  This is the purpose of the surge, and it is in fact working.
2) Build up and provide resources for Iraqi security forces, police, and bureocratic infrastructure to take responsibility.
3) Close off borders and stop the infiltration of new additions to the fighters.

There are signs that things are improving.  But there are also signs that people in Iraq and the region are hedging their bets, making arrangements and plans to make the best of the situation if we leave.  And of course they expect this.  We left Somalia in 1993.  We left Beirut in 1983.  We left Vietnam in 1974.  Britain left Palestine and the Northwest frontier of India in the 40's, allowing enemies to fight amongst themselves.  They hear the rumblings, they watch the political fallout, and they see America weakening before their eyes.  The weaker we look the less cooperation we will get, as our friends recognize our irrelevance and look for friends elsewhere before its too late.

So why are so many changing their tune?  Its all about politics and expediency.  All politicians want to be reelected.  All politicians want to be liked by the masses.  The challenge of politics is to do the right hting when it is the unpopular thing.  Joe Lieberman gets this.  I read his editorial in the Wall Street Journal calling for confrontation of Iran, and he understands that there is right and wrong, and that right matters, even when it is unpopular.  Next Sunday, I will write about right, wrong, and politics.  The art of compromising politically without compromising morally.  This is a huge issue, and a big reason our political system is failing.  Support for the war is very low.  According to numerous polls listed on pollingplace.com, near 70% oppose the war, and over 75% say views on the war will affect their vote.  (   http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm )  When all that matters to you is how people think of you, your popularity, of course you will have no standards, because every firm position will offend someone.  We are being led by "Men without chests"  as CS Lewis puts it, leaders without the political will to stand up for what matters.  And Iraq matters.  If we pull out, 10 years from now, we will look back from the chaos around us and point to this decision as the beginning of the end.