The posturing about a date specific pullout is a bone thrown to the anti war fringe. The Democratic leaders know it would be vetoed, and they also know it is not practical. When faced with the practicalities and the likely outcome they will most probably do what the sitting president is doing.

We have two experiences to draw from. We withdrew from Viet Nam because the moral supremecists thought the war could not get any worse. Against the warnings of Gerald Ford of the likely cost of such a power vacuum, we left- dangling from the helicopters. Pol Pot was left unapposed and our legacy was the killing fields of Cambodia, a genocide with over two million dead. I can not recall any of the moral supremecists demanding our abandonment take any responsibility for the slaughter.

Before Viet Nam we had Korea. A quick victory, an intelligence failure (the Chinese DID enter the war), bogged down, a new General – Matthew Ridgeway, replacing the failed and insolent McArthur, and a President deemed ignorant and incapable with record low poll numbers. Sound familiar?

But we fought to an agreement even if it was not total victory, and fifty years later we still have troops on the ground. Was that a victory? Many would say no, but the free factory worker making Kias in Seoul may disagree, and so would the millions who were not left to a slaughter as we did in Southeast Asia.

Which model would you pick for Iraq? A date specific pullout would make Pol Pot’s antics look like a weekend boating accident. A troop presence for some time is the likely scenario and the Democrats know it. Victory in our conflicts in the future may not be clean and absolute, but will likely be the most desirable from a menu of undesirable options.

Henry Oliner 4/10/07

print