To fight, or not to fight

Peter Wehner offers his take on the Democrat plan to micromanage the Iraq war from Congress.

In wartime, day-to-day military operations are not neatly broken down into arbitrary categories that can be codified into law. Under proposals by Democrats, for example, the military might have to increase the number of lawyers to scrutinize battlefield decisions by military commanders.

...

There is no precedent in American history for succeeding in a war when the commanders were taking battlefield direction from members of the House and Senate.

Not all that long ago, leading Democrats thought arbitrary and rigid timetables were a very bad idea. Speaking at the National Press Club in 2005, now-Majority Leader Harry Reid said this: "As far as setting a timeline, as we learned in the Balkans, that's not a wise decision, because it only empowers those who don't want us there, and it doesn't work well to do that."

Six months later, the now-Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden, put it this way: "A deadline for pulling out . . . will only encourage our enemies to wait us out." He added it would be "a Lebanon in 1985 [sic]. And God knows where it goes from there."

And three months later, the junior Senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton, said this: "I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. I don't think you should ever telegraph your intentions to the enemy so they can await you."

What is perhaps most striking about the Democratic proposals, at least in terms of their timing, is that they are advocating withdrawal at precisely the moment when the new strategy, which has been in place barely a month, is beginning to show signs of progress.

If we retreat from Iraq, Islamic jihadists will not go gently into the good night.

And there's more. Read the whole thing.