POLLING, FAIR-WEATHER HAWKS AND THE OVERALL POPULARITY OF THE IRAQ WAR

About 35% of the American public are committed hawks; about 30% are committed doves; about 20% blow any which way that day's or week's news is blowing: if news is good then they are pro-war; if news is bad, then they are anti-war. And about 15% never care enough to decide what they are.

Any analysis of the SALIENT ups and downs of the first three years of the Iraq War proves this: when Baghdad fell; when Saddam was caught; when good elections were held - then the war went up in overall popularity. This is because the fair-weather hawks decided that because of that week's news the war was okay. When these folks think the war is going badly they become doves.

The RELENTLESSLY one-sided and deliberately negative reportage of the MSM has made these fair-weather hawks more negative than ever - and turned them into doves, for the time being. This is EXACTLY how the MSM skewed the American public to feel negatively about the Vietnam War (after the Tet Offensive, which we WON). We were also WINNING the Vietnam War and Vietnamization was working, and we were also fighting for completely noble and extremely important geopolitical reasons. When the doves of the Democrat Party voted to cut off funding of the South Vietnamese government in 1975 - two full years after the last US combat troop has left Vietnam - it led to the treaty-violating invasion of South Vietnam by North Vietnam, 2 million Boat People, Pol Pot's genocide of 3.5 million Cambodians, and the collapse of Laos. Had we just kept advisory and support troops in South Vietnam and kept up our financial aid these horrible things WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED. Our RETREAT from Southeast Asia encouraged the USSR to invade Afghanistan, and the jihadist to overthrow the Shah. So you see, our dovish Left-wing anti-Vietnam War policies had horrible long-term ramifications - for the entire Free World.

Our combat troops will be needed in Iraq for between one and two years more - according to most analysts, with a perhaps tens of thousands to remain there, on base in Iraq, in order to assist in a continued training and advisory capacity for as long as needed - JUST LIKE IN WE DID IN SOUTH KOREA. This is a reasonable outcome for Iraq, JUST AS IT WAS FOR SOUTH KOREA.

From the position the doves of the Left now advocate for Iraq - "no surge, and withdrawal on an arbitrary timetable" - it is reasonable to feel that these doves do not care about Iraq or the region or the Free World. Advocating these polices for Iraq is like preferring it if we had abandoned South Korea and had let it fall under Stalinist tyranny for the last 50 years. That's just what they're saying now: they wouldn't mind it if Iraq descended into a Taliban-like or Iran-like jihadist tyranny. They'd rather just leave - and stick their heads in the sand.

I for one feel that we can and should make the same opened ended commitment to Iraq as we made for South Korea - and Japan and Western Europe.

Those who claim we don't have the resources are flat pour wrong: we began to fight and eventually won WW2 while mired in a deep DEPRESSION, while unemployment was at its worst. We remain committed to Western Europe from 1946 to 1950 even though our efforts to rebuild it had ALL FAILED UP TO THEN: YUP: The Marshall Plan was not enacted until 1950. There FOUR FULL YEARS OF LACKLUSTER RESULTS UNTIL 1950, BUT AMERICA DID NOT BUG OUT - AS THE LEFT WOULD NOW HAVE US DO!

We can and should do whatever it takes to make sure Iraq doesn't collapse under al Qaeda or Iranian hegemony. It's in in our national interest, the interest of the region, and the free World. Those who decry these goals as unfeasible are wrong, amoral and myopic doves who should be ignored. We must ignore them now; we mustn't repeat the errors of Vietnam.