Crossroads

The Opinion Journal today has a profile on Joe Lieberman that will be sure to provoke much spittle-flecked invective from the left. Those who tried to destroy him politically in the last election will be particularly shrill, I'm sure. But the interview the O-J did with Lieberman has some important, well-articulated thoughts on the war and why we cannot -absolutely cannot - allow ourselves to lose this war. Our politicians who send a message of disarray to our enemies as well as to our friends are doing this country no service.

At the center of this fray is Sen. Lieberman, a sort of Horatio at the congressional bridge–spiritedly trying to hold back a bipartisan stampede out of Iraq that he believes will result in devastating consequences for that country, the region and, most importantly, U.S. national security.

"Iraq is the central part of a larger and ultimately longer-term conflict in the Middle East between moderates and extremists, between democrats and dictators, between Iran- and Iraq-sponsored terrorism and the rest of the Middle East. . . . Are we going to surrender to them, surrender that country to them, and encourage people like them to be in authority and power all over the Middle East and in a better position to strike us again?" asks Mr. Lieberman. If only Livy had his quill today…..

…..So what does that say about Mr. Lieberman's Senate brethren, those who now want to turn tail for Rome, abandoning Horatio and his damned bridge to the enemy? What, I ask, accounts for the growing numbers of senators–including Republicans such as Nebraska's Chuck Hagel, Maine's Olympia Snowe, Oregon's Gordon Smith–who could well provide the decisive votes to undermine their own president in a time of war?

Mr. Lieberman offers a few half-hearted (dare I say, gentlemanly) explanations for the Senate's frigid feet. Some feel let down because the WMDs were never found; others are "affected in a political context by the loss of public support." But he ends up back at a baser truth, conceding that "some people, I just think have been partisan about this–and that, to me, is the worst reason."

Mr. Lieberman is also frustrated that those supporting the resolution are dodging the tough questions. "The resolution that is being talked about, in one sense I'd say it is offensive, because it is only cosmetic. . . . It won't affect the implementation of a new plan to succeed, to win in Iraq. But at the same time it will send a mixed message to those who are fighting for us in Iraq, and those who are fighting against us in Iraq. It will be a very graphic example . . . that we are divided."

I'd recommend reading the whole thing. Lieberman does a good job of explaining why a withdrawal is a really bad idea. The people who are advocating running away will leave behind a genocide. They think they have some form of moral high ground because they blame someone else for the war. But they will wash their hands of the Iraq situation in a river of blood that they have helped bring about.