No Good Plans

Peter Brookes, writing at Real Clear Politics, has a sobering look into the future at what Democratic control may bring to America's defense and foreign policies. It isn't a pretty picture. Many of these things have been mentioned here before, but a few are new – and frightening.

Other than attacking what the Bush administration is doing, Democrats have done little to articulate foreign and national-security policies of their own. But here are some of the possible outcomes if the majority changes hands on Capitol Hill:

On Iraq, many Democrats – led by Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) – have said they'd push for an immediate "redeployment" (i.e., withdrawal) of U.S. troops, leaving who-knows-what kind of nightmare behind.

A premature withdrawal would cause unimaginable instability in the Middle East. And there's no doubt that jihadists would chalk up Iraq as proof positive that terrorism works – adding it to other "successes" in Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993).

Worse, an ignominious U.S. retreat would prove to countless other troublemakers that America is nothing more than a paper tiger.

A liberal majority would also drastically change course on North Korea, pushing for direct U.S. talks with dictator Kim Jong Il – despite his recent missile tests and nuclear blast. Caving in to Pyongyang's demands for one-on-one negotiations would reward its nuclear brinkmanship and blackmail. The lesson wouldn't be lost on its nuclear kindred spirit, Iran.

Speaking of Iran, it's not clear what a liberal congressional leadership would do. They don't seem to say much about it – other than carp about the White House's multilateral efforts to curb the mullahs' nuclear ambitions.

But you could clearly forget about missile defenses to protect the homeland and troops deployed overseas. Liberals see such defenses as provocative. (In fact, leaving ourselves deliberately vulnerable to ballistic missiles is truly provocative – and foolhardy.)

It was proven just this morning that the Bush administration has handled the attempted nuclear blackmail by North Korea almost perfectly. They did not cave in to pressure and have forced Kim Jong Il to rejoin the six party talks. The Democrats have been trying to undermine that with repeated calls for one on one talks. So that one may be defused. But what Brookes writes about the missile defenses is very scary. He's quite correct here. The Democrats have shown a blind hatred of those programs and have a long history of defunding them.

The people who plan to sit out the election and dishonor the dead soldiers who paid with their lives for your right to vote had better consider the implications of what they are bringing on in the long term. They might think they are sending a signal, but it may take years to recover lost ground. Go over and read the whole thing. Brookes paints a pretty bleak picture. (And apropos my last post, I do not necessarily believe that damage or changes will be permanent, but they can be costly and take years to recover from).