Jonah Goldberg: The Body Democratic - Fight today or occupy forever

As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be-President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. 'When comes the end?' ... And as soon as he became president, he brought the Korean War to an end." This was part of freshman Virginia Sen. Jim Webb's much ballyhooed stentorian Democratic response to President Bush's State of the Union address.

One wonders if the untold millions of North Koreans who've starved, bled, and died since then would similarly applaud Eisenhower's courage and wisdom. For more than half a century, North Korea has been a prison-camp society beyond the imagining of George Orwell, where public executions for stealing food are familiar events. The man-made famine of the 1990s alone claimed the lives of up to 1 million people (hard data from Stalinist regimes are difficult to come by).

One also wonders: When are our troops going to come home? Technically, the Korean War isn't really over. We're merely enjoying a ceasefire — much like the one we had with Iraq in the 1990s.

While Webb favors a "formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq," our forces in South Korea have been there for nearly six decades. Something tells me the antiwar base of the Democratic party doesn't have that sort of timetable in mind for Iraq.

So, except for the fact that the Korean War didn't end, our troops are still there, and the outcome has been the source of humanitarian and national-security nightmares, Webb's salute to Eisenhower's statesmanship really strikes home.

In fairness, Webb is a thoughtful man who takes foreign affairs more seriously than most politicians. But his closest-weapon-to-hand style of attack against Bush does not reflect well on him or the Democratic party that chose him to be its representative.

But it is revealing. Indeed, the Democratic party's most honest moment Tuesday night came not in Webb's brusque words but in the Democrats' brusquer body language.

The president asserted that no one wants failure in Iraq. Understandably, the commander in chief wanted to avoid conceding how very real a possibility failure is, so he chose his rhetoric carefully. He spoke in the abstract about the bipartisan desire for victory and success.

And yet the Democrats for the most part sat on their hands, refusing to applaud, never mind rise in favor of such statements from a wartime president.

Then, when the president mentioned ending genocide in Darfur, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party leaped to their feet.

Perhaps such applause is mere grace on the cheap. Democrats know they can count on their beloved United Nations to prevent serious intervention in Sudan's civil war. Or maybe the Democrats really want action in Darfur, even though that would put us smack dab in the middle of a civil war, which Jack Murtha, Joe Biden, and other war critics invoke as a classic blunder the way Vizzini referred to land wars in Asia in The Princess Bride

The 11th Commandment for liberals seems to be, "Thou shalt not intervene out of self-interest." Intervening in civil wars for humanitarian reasons is O.K., but meddling for national-security reasons is not. This would explain why liberals supported interventions in civil wars in Yugoslavia and Somalia but think being in one in Iraq is the height of folly. If only Truman had called the Korean civil war a humanitarian crisis, Ike might not have called the whole thing off.

None of this explains why Democrats are so eager to support continued U.S. fighting against the Taliban as part of NATO forces in Afghanistan, even though that puts us between two sides in what amounts to an Afghan civil war. But maybe Afghanistan is a humanitarian crisis too. Or maybe it's an excuse for Democrats to prove they are still tough as far as foreign policy. Or maybe Democrats simply think the war in Iraq is lost, while there's still hope in Afghanistan ... assuming there's a principle in there somewhere.

There seems to be only one hope for persuading the Democrats to support staying in Iraq. Let's just beat the rush and call Iraq a humanitarian crisis now. It surely is already. And if we leave prematurely, Iraq will undoubtedly give Darfur and Yugoslavia a run for their money as a humanitarian horror show. Why wait for calls to return to stop the bloodshed?

It's even possible that an Iraq left to fend for itself might become a national-security threat on a par with nuclear-armed North Korea.

Not that national security should factor into it.

(C) 2007 Tribune Media Services, Inc. Jonah Goldberg is Editor-at-Large of National Review Online.

As usual, the Democrats don't have a consistent set of principles to explain their positions. Why Afghanistan if not Iraq? Jonah: Maybe it's an excuse for Democrats to prove they are still tough as far as foreign policy.

Why Afghanistan if not Iraq? Jonah: Maybe it's an excuse for Democrats to prove they are still tough as far as foreign policy.

Right, and it's completely disingenuous. If/once we left Iraq, the goalposts would be moved and Afghanistan would be the new "disaster" that required us to "redeploy".

In fact, the only reason most (D) politicians supported the Afghanistan invasion in the first place was because they perceived the political winds to be blowing so strongly that some military action was needed. They thought that giving a thumbs-up to Afghanistan would be enough of a bone to throw at the American people that no other military action would follow. That's part of why they threw such a hissy fit about Iraq.

Thank you Jonah, I was wondering why the Eisenhower reference rang so untrue. If Democrats are calling on us to pull an Eisenhower, it means leaving our troups on the border for sixty years while the new nutjob rulers develop nuclear weapons.

Webb should be beat over the head with this till he bleads. The Korean DMZ was no solution at all.

Good article- We absolutely MUST fight or lose, and yet the mainstream media seems hell bent on us losing htis war and on the Iraqis suffering complete breakdown.

The following link does not relate to this thread http://sacredscoop.com

Eisenhower implied that he would not let the stalemate continue. That may have been interpreted in Peking and Moscow and, the he might take MacArthur's approach to victory.

I'm not sure if continuing the Korean War would have been a good thing. I doubt if Ike would have used nukes to end the war, since the Soviets had nukes. Also, in the new book about Mao "The Untold Story," it came out that Mao convinced Stalin to allow Kim to invade the South in an effort to bleed US military forces with the countless Chinese forces. Continuing the war would have required bombing China and becoming more offensive. I wonder how it would have turned out?

Mao convinced Stalin to allow Kim to invade the South in an effort to bleed US military forces with the countless Chinese forces. Continuing the war would have required bombing China and becoming more offensive. I wonder how it would have turned out?

That's a good point. The CIC does not know in advance how it will turn out, but makes a decision. The outcome of Korea resulting from actual policy is bad. Even though outcome could have been worse if Eisenhower had acted differently, we can look at Korea for a clue as to how things might turn out in Iraq if we were to follow an Eisenhower-type strategy. And even if Korea would have been worse if Eisenhower had acted differently, that does not indicate that the outcome in Iraq will necessarily be worse following a non-Eisenhower-like strategy.

"I'm not sure if continuing the Korean War would have been a good thing."

Probably not, but that misses the point. If the Democrats think a withdrawal that parallels that in Korea is without dire consequences of its own, well Korea is an example of the endgame we don't want.

There can be a quagmire of disengagement just as well as a quagmire of engagement.

Not on the border. The "Eisenhower" solution suggests we partition Iraq into part that likes us, and part that doesn't, and that we put all our troops on THAT border, essentially being the tripwire in a civil war.

It was vietnam where we tried the "move troops out of the country". That lead to our enemies destroying the country, AND a neighboring country, and leaving the people we "supported" in abject misery for 3 decades.

At least in Korea, we only left the world in terror, and half the country in misery -- the part we did NOT abandon turned out quite well.

Maybe THAT is the lesson we need.

So, except for the fact that the Korean War didn't end, our troops are still there, and the outcome has been the source of humanitarian and national-security nightmares, Webb's salute to Eisenhower's statesmanship really strikes home.

That's a pretty good slap-down of Webb. If Senator Allen had been able to get off some responses like that to Webb's inane comments during his 3 debates, we'd still have the Senate.

I think it is fair to say that Democrats never finish anything. Think war on porverty. In fact, they resist even evaluating results systematically. They are parasites and programs are just cover for extending salaries to their supporters.

The 11th Commandment for liberals seems to be, "Thou shalt not intervene out of self-interest."

Actually, libs only act out of self interest...they expect that no one else should be allowed to...and certainly not America.

There is "we" and "they" and they consider America to be "they."

"Then, when the president mentioned ending genocide in Darfur, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party leaped to their feet."

So then, by the dems very own standards (genocide), can't we conclude that Iraq was a humanitarian crisis from the git-go?

I agree with you, if we simply withdrew from Iraq, the problem continues. We probably will have attacks in the USA. Jordan might be next on the list for extremists.

Or maybe the Democrats really want action in Darfur, even though that would put us smack dab in the middle of a civil war, ... a classic blunder the way Vizzini referred to land wars in Asia in The Princess Bride

quote " In fairness, Webb is a thoughtful man who takes foreign affairs more seriously than most politicians. "endQuote

If he was thoughtful, he would support the US, and air his differences in private.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.