Are we really wimps?

John Podhoretz:

All the talk about Iraq inside the United States in the year 2005 has been meaningless.. . .

But here's what really happened in 2005: The Iraqis voted and voted and voted again. And no matter what was said to him or about him or of him, George W. Bush didn't blink and didn't falter. He stuck to his policy with a steely determination. Oh, he could have done a better job earlier in the year explaining it all to the American people.

And above all, the heroic American military has learned things about fighting insurgencies that will give our soldiers a new understanding of how to win wars — an understanding so deep that, when this war is won, insurgents elsewhere will be terrified to engage with us.

The story of 2005 is a story of determination in the face of adversity and peril — both physical and political. The people of Iraq, the men and women of the U.S. military and George W. Bush end this year with pride and the knowledge that they have done good for the world.

This takes me back to the days just after 9/11 when Bernard Lewis was a guest on the Charlie Rose Show and stated what has since been born out, that Arabs respect resoluteness. When we waver and appear divided and indecisive, we send them two messages: that we are are weak and that we cannot be relied upon. We had given them ample evidence of both over the years, particularly since the withdrawal of the Marines from Lebandon after they were attacked with a truck bomb in October 1983. Attack after attack resulted in withdrawal or was treated as a criminal matter instead of an act of war. The first Gulf War was seen as further proof that we would not respond to hostile acts in the way they deserve.

George W. Bush has consistently maintained his resolve, but our media and the American Eurocrats in the Democrat Party have been blaring the opposite message. Even an old war horse like John Murtha has turned out to have no more resolve than John Kerry. He has the voice and manner of the tough Marine, but his words make one wonder what he's been sniffing. Probably a lot of newspaper ink.

We are at war, and we have a loud minority in Congress demanding that we give the enemy a timetable of our plans with a date certain for our withdrawal. Could anything be more obviously stupid?

For those who yammer about the "lessons of Vietnam," it should be remembered that it was the indecisive policy of unwillingness to defeat the enemy that made LBJ's conduct of that war such a debacle. Once we started to take the war to the North Vietnamese, they were willing to talk. If we had not abandoned our allies in the South after we pulled our troops out, they might have been able to maintain their freedom.

What evidence is there that the Democrats have learned anything from Vietnam except that America cannot project its military power? There are more ways to lose a war than there are ways to win it. And the Democrats seem to have become experts in how to lose.

To win, however, requires determination and resolve, there may be mistakes, failures and screw ups--there's a reason the word "snafu" was developed in the military--but if we have clearly defined goals and learn from experience we will win. Some goals like "convincing the North Vietnamese to stay in the North" are just not achievable, but "destroy the ability of the North Vietnamese to make war on the South" certainly is. And "help the Iraqi people to create a democratic government and train their troops until they become capable of defeating the terrorists and defending their own freedoms," is a very clear benchmark to me. Just get over this fixation on bringing our troops home. We still have troops in Korea, Japan, Germany and Kosovo. They serve us all by serving the cause of peace through strength.