Who would ever have imagined that America would be trying so hard to fight a politically-correct war just five years after 9/11 that we'd do the enemy's work for him? In a thousand years of open battle, al-Qaeda's mass-murdering fanatics could not possibly force the United States military to retreat one single inch. Yet some of our own people have been screaming for an all-out flight from Iraq every day of the last four years, and those voices are growing louder now that the Democrats control Congress. Retreat would hand the enemy a huge victory -- psychological, symbolic and very real -- and prevent the US from projecting force anywhere in the world again for at least a generation. And we may be on the verge of giving in to the terrorists.

Those on the Left cite excuses for retreat ranging from the high-sounding "innocents have been killed," to the ignorant, "it's an Iraqi internal problem," to the ridiculous "we should have never removed Saddam from power." Another "reason" we're often given is that Europeans -- the people responsible for more military massacres and imperialist invasions throughout history than the US could ever hope to achieve -- are unhappy with us, and the anti-war crowd insists that surrender would restore their good opinion. Thanks, but I think we can live with their largely impotent disapproval while continuing to fight the enemy.

In post-war Iraq, too many people have been killed while the enemy was either using them as human shields or deliberately blowing them up, and (gasp!) the cowardly thugs have even managed to kill a few of our troops while sacrificing themselves by the tens of thousands. If we're going to consider the deaths of non-combatants -- and we should -- we at least owe it to them to be honest about who is truly responsible for their deaths, and what we're trying to achieve there.

In any war in history prior to forty years ago, Iraq would have been acclaimed as a huge victory for our side, and the post-war insurgency -- fueled largely by al-Qaeda, Iran and Ba'ath party thugs -- put down without a second thought. It's impossible to imagine Americans pulling out of Germany, wringing their hands, if the post-WWII insurgency known as the Werwolves had been funded, supplied and bolstered by an outside force. Sometimes it seems as though "the greatest generation" was the last great generation.

On the other hand, few object to fighting terrorists in Afghanistan. Some actually want to send American troops to Darfur, in Sudan, to fight Islamofascist mass murderers there. It's just Iraqis they don't want to help, and for purely political reasons. So the topic of conversation in Washington changes from "how do we win this fight?" to "how fast can we get out of it?" regardless of what will happen after we leave. It seems the only person in the nation's capital still interested in winning the fight in Iraq is President Bush. Democrats plan to hold a vote on a non-binding resolution demanding that Bush send no more troops to Iraq. A non-binding resolution means that it carries no actual force, being useful, therefore, only to our enemies as propaganda. If the Democrats feel so strongly about retreating from Iraq, then let them cut off funding, instead of merely holding symbolic votes.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) accused the President, who has already begun sending additional troops to help clear Baghdad of insurgents, of "moving so quickly to put them in harm's way" because he knew Congress would not cut of funding for them if they were already there. The Democrats want so badly to relive the end of Vietnam, when they forced the US to abandon Vietnam and cut funding to our allies, that they ignore what happened next, and what will surely happen again if they repeat that mistake.

Iraq is not Vietnam, despite the hysterical comparisons made every day in the media and by Democrats such as Ted Kennedy (D-MA). But those on the Left don't seem to mind if it becomes Cambodia, as long as they can use every death as political capital in their perpetual campaign season. If we withdraw from Iraq prematurely, Iraq will become first an abattoir, then a client state of a radical rogue nation sworn to destroy us. If the Democrats allow that to happen, they would be at least irresponsible, if not derelict in their duty to the nation.