The Party Of Defeat (2 Updates)

“The Party Of Defeat” is the title of Robert Caldwell’s column today in the San Diego Union-Tribune. Robert Caldwell, editor of the Sunday opinion section at the newspaper is one of the most studied commentators in the major media on international affairs and domestic politics, who repeatedly zeroes in on core issues that his more liberal counterparts avoid or obfuscate.

Caldwell strikes a signal stake into the heart of the Democrat Party’s machinations over Iraq:

Starkly put, Democrats risk making “Bush’s war” their war, and then losing it.

The whole column is to be read, but if you only read that short sentence you know almost all you need to know about the Democrats’ congressional and presidential posturing.

All Caldwell has to say, however, regarding Republicans is that, “All but a handful of Republicans” congressmen voted against the Democrats’ irresolute resolution in the House. The column was written before yesterday’s vote in the Senate, in which the New York Times emphasized, “Seven Republicans split from their party and joined 48 Democrats and one Independent…All but two of the seven face re-election next year.” The first paragraph of the New York Times narrative trumpets,

Republican defections emboldened Democrats to promise new attempts to influence the administration’s war policy.

If Republicans tolerate this behavior from Republican senators and congressmen, the Republican Party will deserve to be tarred as a Party Of Accomodating Defeat. This isn’t a matter of congressional nicety to tolerate deviance. This is a core matter of national security, above all, and certainly above narrow partisan advantages in Congress.

The Republican Party is not the property of its paid functionaries or legislators. It is the property of Republicans. Some may argue that the teeter-totter of congressional majority, for the benefit of this or that tax or narrow domestic interest group, is primary over national security. It isn’t. Many activist Republicans are beginning to band together to remind legislators of their proper priority, as The Victory Caucus. The registration screen has been fixed, so please click and join today.

The New York Times continues:

Democrats would not divulge the details of their next step, but one official said it would focus on the mission of American troops in Iraq and try to skirt the more politically difficult question of federal money for the military.

Caldwell’s column cites what the Democrats have divulged:

Rep. John Murtha, the blustery Pennsylvania pol and anti-war ally of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, is already pledging to use his power as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee's appropriations subcommittee on defense to stop the surge by restricting the deployment and funding of U.S. forces.

Here's what Murtha said in an interview Thursday with the MoveCongress.org Web site, which represents a coalition of anti-war groups:

“They (the troops) won't be able to continue. They won't be able to do the deployment. They won't have the equipment, they don't have the training and they won't be able to do the work. There's no question in my mind ... we're going to stop this surge.”

Does Pelosi, smarter and smoother than Murtha, agree?

“I fully support that,” Pelosi said of Murtha's remarks.

Then Caldwell points out the practical issue:

Congress' constitutional authority lies in deciding how much to appropriate for the military. Deputizing 435 House members and 100 senators as armchair generals to micromanage the movement of troops and the military conduct of a war isn't in the Constitution for a reason. It couldn't possibly work and would be folly to attempt.

General Petraeus faces many similar hurdles in Iraq today that were faced by General Creighton Abrams in his turn around in Vietnam that brought victory in the field, only to see it literally abandoned by congressional eliminations of American and South Vietnamese war fighting abilities. From a tape of one of his command meetings (researched by Lewis Sorley in A Better War):

Abrams told his field commanders one day, "We're in a time period where it's the goddamnedest ball game -- outfielders are running around in the infield, infielders are out, and people are shoving the pitcher and trying to get a chance at it." And, someone else suggested, "the sportswriters are down on the field, too."

"That's right," Abrams agreed. "Not only that, but some of the fans and so on. It's really -- it's a mess. Jesus, everybody's in the act, and they've completely abandoned the territory that they're supposed to be covering, and they're just roaming. One other thing -- the officials have abandoned the field. The umpires are in the locker room."

Not this time, say many, who remember or learned what happened last time. Join the Victory Caucus.

UPDATE 1:
Speaking for the Senate Democrats, Charles Schumer chimed in with his intention for Democrats to be “relentless.”

There will be resolution after resolution, amendment after amendment…just like in the days of Vietnam.

UPDATE 2:
Mark Tapscott, editorial page editor of the Examiner, points out the last time the Democrats tried to salute their own perfidy:

For millions of Americans, including people in both parties and especially among Baby Boomers, the sight of Kerry stepping to the podium and saluting in acceptance of the Democratic presidential nomination was too much.

Swift Boat Veterans provided a voice and an effective political channel for these voters, without whose passion and votes Bush might well have been relegated to a one-term presidency.

Today, millions of Americans still think the War on Terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere is worth winning, even as the Democratic party is swept with a withdrawal fever fed by decades of ideologically induced blaming America first for the world's ills.

Simultanously, GOP ranks in Congress are divided over the war in Iraq, with some of its most visible and respected leaders caving in to the same fever, and most of the rest being reluctant or at best only half-hearted in labelling Democrats as a party of retreat and defeat.

In other words, nobody in the Washington Establishment is speaking for those in heartland America who want victory against the terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere. That's why Victory Caucus is getting such a tremendous response so quickly. People "out there in the real world" beyond the Washington Beltway yearn for leaders who speak for them on behalf of winning.

It's not guaranteed, of course, but Victory Caucus has the look of the election wild card of the 2008 presidential campaign.