Wrong War, Not Anti-War

In Daniel Henninger's Wall Street Journal article "Democrats Knifed Lieberman on Eve Of Airliner Plot", available here or here, he writes:

That was unfortunate timing this week for the Lamont Democrats, declaring themselves officially the antiwar party within 24 hours of the Brits foiling an Islamic terror plot to spread thousands of U.S.-bound bodies across the North Atlantic, or perhaps across New York, Boston and Washington as the planes descended. Yes, we know; they support the war on terror but are merely against George Bush's war in Iraq. How does that work?

Last week before the Lamont victory, 12 members of the congressional Democratic leadership sent President Bush a letter urging that he start a phased pullout from Iraq, euphemized as a "redeployment," starting before the end of this year. But it is becoming increasingly fantastic to argue that in Iraq, with its apparently limitless supply of suicide bombers, hasn't much to do with the terror threats manifest elsewhere.

Put it this way: From the perspective as of yesterday of getting on a U.S. airliner, who would you rather have in the Senate formulating policy toward this threat -- Ned Lamont or Joe Lieberman?

...

With the knifing of Joe Lieberman, the Democrats have locked in as the antiwar party. No turning back now. You're in or you're out. And this will be enforced. Susan Estrich, formerly of Dukakis for President, told the Fox News Channel this week that Hillary Clinton "has got to get herself in a position where she's for withdrawal of troops in Iraq before the next Democratic primary."

...

Events like the massive protests in Washington and elsewhere between 1969 and 1971 were in part about events in Vietnam, but there was also a huge amount of narcissistic self-indulgence in the movement. People joined in the expectation of being around an "event" -- part rock concert, part street theater, the rush of being part of a morally unblemished belief system. Sort of like the Web. This politics produced two major candidacies -- Eugene McCarthy's challenge to Lyndon Johnson in 1968 and George McGovern's to Richard Nixon in 1972. Both got blown out.

Seems the premise is that to be against the Iraq war is to be against fighting terrorism and ipso facto those who are/were against the war are soft on terrorism. I reject that premise.

1. I did not understand that the Dems are saying they are an anti war party. They are against the Iraq war, but that is not the same thing.

2. Daniel Henninger asks how the war on terror works. The "war on terror" (which is not a war) works exactly the way the UK police acted. They did not bomb West London. They sought out suspected terrorists and put them in jail. (By the way I think that they have to be charged within a month or released--Britain has no Guantanamo.)

3. I do not know the Lamont strategy, but for me if we are not able to send in 500,000 troops (and now the number is probably at least 1 million) there is no need to become bystanders to a civil war, which I predicted from day 1. Powell said if you break it you own it, but we never took control.

4. The only relationship that Iraq has with suicide bombers are from elsewhere. Suicide bombers preceded the Iraq situation by decades. The World Trade Center bombers had no special love for Iraqis and their motivation had more to do with Israel than Iraq.

5. I don't want Lieberman or Lamont formulating policy. I want a more efficient FBI and a more integrated police system than we have had up to now that works domestically and has wide contacts internationally.

6. Neither the old Hillary nor the new Hillary is the answer to this problem.

7. Mentioning Vietnam in the context of this article is a mistake just as Vietnam was a mistake. Does Daniel Henninger mean to say that we should have stayed in Vietnam? And since we left after losing about 60,000 young Americans has Vietnam been a problem? (I don't wish to imply that leaving Iraq would leave behind the same smooth transition to a peaceful country. I doubt that it would.)

8. The "war" on terror should be a bi-partisan "war". The WAR on Iraq cannot be since it was a mistake whose consequences are recurring.

9. I really doubt that the Democrats support for a fight against terror is zero. I consider that to be an unwarranted slur. And I am not even a Democrat. But it is a slur I am sensitive to since many friends who know of my opposition to the war on Iraq think of me as anti-American.