Why Congress should support the "surge":

It’s hard for a soldier like me to reconcile a political jab like Senator Harry Reid’s “this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything” when it’s made in front of a banner that reads “Support Our Troops.” But the politician’s job is different from the soldier’s. Mr. Reid’s belief — that the best way to support the troops is by acknowledging defeat and pulling them out of Iraq — is likely shared by a large slice of the population, which gives it legitimacy.

It seems oddly detached, however, from what’s happening on the battlefield. The Iraqi battalion I lived with is stationed outside of Habbaniya, a small city in violent Anbar Province. Together with a fledgling police force and a Marine battalion, these Iraqi troops made Habbaniya a relatively secure place: it has a souk where Iraqi soldiers can shop outside their armored Humvees, public generators that don’t mysteriously explode, children who walk to school on their own. The area became so stable, in fact, that it attracted the attention of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. In late February, the Sunni insurgents blew up the mosque, killing 36.

If American politicians pull the marines out of Anbar, the Iraqi soldiers told me, they too will have to pull back, ceding some zones to protect others. The same is true in the Baghdad neighborhoods where the early stages of the surge have made life livable again.

And here's another soldier who is justifiably angry:

What the Democrats are doing is akin to what we did in Vietnam by signing a peace agreement with the North Vietnamese, tantamount to bailing out on our allies’ without their concurrence, then departing with absolutely no intention of ever coming back, no matter what the North Vietnamese did. Congress also cut off financial support for South Vietnam after our departure. And sure as hell, as soon as we left, the North Vietnamese attacked south in full force, and for two more years, the two sides pounded each other until the more determined North, supported by Russia and China, won the war. And we veterans here at home who had fought and seen so many of our buddies die over there, had to keep our mouths shut and just take it.

And we felt the shame of defeat. Not a defeat we’d suffered, but a defeat of our national will. And that enraged me and made me feel ashamed. It took me more than forty years to get over it, and I still simmer when I think about it.

And we’re going to do it again, thanks to the Democrats in Congress.

On the other hand – and I have to say this to keep my sanity — in a democracy, the will of the people must prevail, and if the majority of our population really want us to leave Iraq, then we should. But has there been a national debate about staying or leaving, fighting or folding, winning or losing? No. Has there been a definitive referendum on the war? No. And have the American people been given a chance, other than anecdotally, to make a statement on whether we want to withdraw from Iraq and face the consequences, or whether we want to tough it out, and win the bloody thing? No.

So I ask you, where do the Democrats come up with this national mandate bullshit?

Whole cloth, baby. Whole cloth.

[Update at 9:30 AM EDT]

In response to the first comment, last fall's vote was not a referendum on the war at all, let alone a "definitive" one. There were many issues that weren't the war, and many Democrats ran on them. I was pissed off at the Republicans, and happy to see them lose (but sadder to see the Dems win, because they didn't deserve to). But it wasn't (just) over the war, and to the limited degree that it was about the war, it sure as hell wasn't because I wanted us to surrender.

Have you ever heard of a "controlled experiment" (hint: that wasn't one)?

" But has there been a national debate about staying or leaving, fighting or folding, winning or losing? "

Actually, yeah. It's been going for four years.

"Has there been a definitive referendum on the war? "

Again, yes. Unfortunately, that definitive national referendum resulted in the Dems taking control of both houses of Congress.

Andy said: that definitive national referendum resulted in the Dems taking control of both houses of Congress.

And they promptly watched their ratings go down as far as the public's concerned. Its no longer a left or right thing....its just great distaste for government in general.

Just curious, but has:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/5/2/05841/07544

Got it ass backward?

To whit:

"While I will admit to not regularly following any blogs written by active duty soldiers on the ground in Iraq, I do count on them to keep the MSM honest with their Iraq reporting. Military bloggers provide a check on a media establishment that may have a vested interest in letting a big disturbing story slip through the cracks or who choose to report administration propaganda without critical examination. I find this very troubling."

First off I apologize for making such a long post but I do think it is directly relevant to Rand Simberg's topic and I think it's a missing piece in the discussion on what the US is doing right now and why it matters so greatly.

To clarify: I use the word "democracy" in the general meaning of the word rather than a specific subset definition such as used by those who say the US is not a democracy (which is true or false depending upon which subset definition is chosen).

I think it's about time to get out the message that an isolationist or pacifist democracy is no better than no democracy at all in the long run.

A democracy that is unwilling not only to defend itself but to make sacrifices of blood and effort towards the aim of spreading and defending general democratic ideals across the world with the freedoms and opportunities it bestows on the individual has reneged on its responsibilities towards humanity.

The US has mostly avoided that error with noteable exceptions like the start of World War II and far worse: the "end" ot the war in Viet Nam. The willingness to fight not only for themselves but for others is the only reason the US can claim to be the champion of freedom among democracies in the world despite a host of problems and difficulties generally shared with the rest; because all other democracies have been not only insufficiently willing but also seemingly ignorant of the need to defend the principles of democracy anywhere and for anyone. Among the multitude of reasons for why those nations falter it is often due to racial or cultural prejudice camouflaged as "cultural tolerance", a sort of racist fatalism embracing any status quo in order to avoid doing anything judged too demanding.

The idea of the need for such "cultural tolerance" is absurd if one looks at history. Implementations of democracy vary according to culture from nation to nation and can be as different as we as individuals are from each other but the core principles remain the same. The japanese Diet did not make Japan less japanese. The german Bundestag did not make Germany less german. South Korea's National Assembly is without a doubt very korean. The two chambers of the Federal Assembly in Russia are as russian as anything gets. Nor does the parliament of Turkey make it less turkish. The recent changes in Mauretania does not make that country less mauretanian.

So let's sink the idea that democratic ideals somehow is supposed to subvert or destroy the intrinsic culture of the country it is applied to.

And when that is done it should become more easily understandable to people living in already existing democracies, flawed as might be, that the only defensible option both on purely humanitarian grounds as well as to ones own benefit is to spread democracy. Not just by fair words on sunny days but by the brutal violence of war where words have failed to make progress.

I believe we need to start saying this and keep repeating it.

If someone disagrees we should demand that they respond with clarity just as our own responses should strive for clarity. If factual counterarguments exist that invalidates the above then so be it, but it will be the day democracy dies. If so at least it died fighting rather than bedridden with disease. If so we will at least have a better vantage point from which to create something better.

Feel free to make these ideas your own, to further clarify them and to embellish them.

Habitat Hermit
Oslo, Norway - 2nd of May 2007

(I apologize for any misspellings as I use an outdated version of Firefox without spell checking).

Where do democrats come up with a mandate?

Easy, they count heads and look who they can elect as speaker.