The most annoying thing about the Democratic leadership today is their
abosolute incoherence on the war on terror.  The Republican position
on the war is simple to state: "We're going to invade countries in the
Middle East and occupy them until the people form democracies, and
elect pro-American, and perhaps pro-Israeli, governments."  Yes, it's
stupid, failing miserably, and plays to all of America's weaknesses,
but it *is* clear.  The Democratic position seems to be to denounce
the current plan, while not changing it (Kerry), or adding even more
troops that we don't even have (Clinton and Lieberman).  I'm simply
not a good enough writer to express my contempt for the foolishness
and intellectual laziness of these leaders.  Representative Murtha's
is the only sanely reasoned position, although it speaks only to the
events today in Iraq.

To do better, let's look back a bit, to right after 9/11, when two
things were very clear.

First, it is clear that while a nuclear attack on the west is suicidal
for a sovereign nation, the post-war nuclear non-proliferation
mechanisms don't work against terrorists.  Our first priority should
have been, and should still be, to ensure that all fissionible nuclear
materials in the world are secured by multinational observers backed
by a NATO-like force.  Countries unwilling to allow permanent
monitoring and accounting of any materials that can be used to build a
nuclear weapon would be subject to military action.  That's the
tactical issue, and it is an important one.

Second, there's a big problem, especially in the Arab world, but in
some other countries as well, with a non-existent middle class, for it
is the prsence of a large middle class in an export-based economy, not
"democracy," that really makes a genuinely peaceful neighbor.
Democracy usually follows, but sometimes only after a generation of
growing middle class power; look at South Korea, for example.  The
Republican's assumption that imposing a democratic government on a
country with no middle class to support a pluralistic society was
stupid from the get-go.  It was obvious that a demcratic election in
Iraq would lead to a fundamentalist government taking power: the
majority of Iraqis are poor Shiites without any skills valued by an
export oriented economy.  With oil revenues the only source of
economic power in Iraq, elections literally follow a "winner take all"
model.

Our foreign policy then, should play to our strengths.  That means
encouraging the growth of export-based economies, and economic
engagement with the countries we wish to affect.  For over four
decades, we've technically opposed Fidel Castro's rule in Cuba, while
our embargo effectively prevents the formation of any other source of
economic power in that country.  What could be stupider?  But
encouraging the growth of middle classes throughout the world is a
long term strategy, not a short term fix.

Of course, what we actually did, instead of leading a true
international coalition to control WMDs and the raw materials that can
be used to build them, was instead to invade and occupy Iraq.  That
was has been a disaster: at present, the elected government run by
Shiite Iranian-allied thugs whose associated militias have been
terrorizing whatever middle class existed in Iraq.  Its violent
opposition comes from Sunnis who want us out of the country, and a
smaller group of Al Qaeda members who want to take over Iraq
themselves (but have no hope of doing so).  Unfortunately, the Sunnis
and Shiites there will keep killing each other until *they* decide to
stop.  All our troops are doing now is providing backing for some of
the worst elements in Iraqi society, the true Islamic fundamentalists
of the Badr brigade and SCIRI, to rule over the entire country.  It is
time for us to recognize that we have failed in Iraq, and leave.  The
Sunnis and Shiites will eventually negotiate an end to the violence,
in order to share in Iraq's oil wealth.  After that, they will crush
the local Al Qaeda elements, since they are loathed by both the Sunnis
and the Shiites, and are tolerated in the Sunni areas only because, to
date, we're the common enemy of both the Sunnis and Al Qaeda.
Eventually Iraq will hopefully recover from this disaster, but
realistically, there is little we can do to bring that date closer.

I would sorely love to hear some Democrats on the national stage
acknowledge the basic realities above.  Instead, I just hear
platitudes about staying the course.