Psst! Congress! There's a war on!

Robert Tracinski's superb analysis of recent goings-on in the Middle East (which appeared in yesterday's TIA Daily) has top billing in today's listing of commentary at RealClear Politics and is a must-read. Tracinski discusses (and provides links to other relevant material for) several important aspects of the situation, including: current American policy towards Iran, the rationale for why (and where) Iran is acting now, and the limitations inherent in its approach. He ends with the following:

Iran has revealed its hand, challenging the US and its allies and openly demonstrating its desire to dominate the Middle East through force and terror. While we have been trying to delay the war with Iran, it has brought the war to us, in a manner so obvious that even the mainstream media cannot evade it.

In doing so, they have made their threat to America and its interests more obvious and more urgent--providing a stronger case for war than their nuclear program could provide. There can be no question here about whether Iran really has aggressive designs in the Middle East, whether it really seeks the weapons to attack the US and its allies, and how long it might take for such a threat to materialize. The threat is here and Iran's newest war on the West has already begun.

Iran is risking everything on this new strategy, and the only hope they have of success is the expectation that, as they bring the war closer and closer to America, we won't fight back.

But that means that we have an easy way to blow their strategy to smithereens.

All we have to do is to start fighting back.

There are two further things beyond this analysis that warrant further consideration by our leaders and the public that elects them.

(1) As two recent posts at Principles in Practice point out, we have not -- our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq notwithstanding -- even begun fighting back. We have been fighting a partial war and not even against the main enemy so far.

As Craig Biddle puts it in "The Taliban Can ... Because We Let Them":

Our primary target after 9-11 should not have been the Taliban in Afghanistan; it should have been the regime in Iran. But if we were going to pursue the Taliban, we certainly should have eliminated these vile creatures swiftly and permanently. In order to have done so, however, our military would have to have been under the command of a president who was willing to use the full force of the military -- and to use it not only against the Taliban but also against the regime in Pakistan, which materially and spiritually supports the Taliban. Instead, the Bush administration dropped small bombs and much bread on Afghanistan, permitted the Taliban to escape into Pakistan, and dubbed the regime in Pakistan our "friend." [bold added]

One could just as well say, "Iran Can ... Beacuse We Let It".

And David Holcberg, in a reprinted letter to the editor, sums things up very nicely in this way: "It is long past time for Israel to wage a real war against these terrorist groups and states. And it is long past time for the United States to join."

If recent events wake us up, we will at least finally have the right target in our sights. That will correct one error we have made. The other error, as Biddle indicates, lies in what "fighting back" means. A review of the end of the conflict with Japan in World War II is in order for that purpose. As John Lewis puts it:

Were it true that total victory today creates new attackers tomorrow, we would now be fighting Japanese suicide bombers, while North Korea -- where the American army did not march -- would be peaceful and prosperous. The facts are otherwise.

Our purpose in this war should be for our self-defense only. We should do whatever it takes to make Iran unable to threaten us or our ally Israel ever again. This includes exercising if need be the option that Iran wants (and will use if they get it) -- but that we already have.

(2) Tracinski has often pointed out that the Democrats, being the anti-war party, have severely handicapped their chances for success in this November's elections. This is probably true, but a recent poll shows that we are in danger of a Democratic success at the polls this November anyway. (Of course, this is truly dangerous only if the Republicans suddenly develop a spine. Read on.)

Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.

The story goes on to say that, given the huge advantage incumbents hold in elections, the Democrats will have to find a way to nationalize the elections like the Republicans did in 1994 in order to win control of either house of Congress. Predictably, they're focusing on economic issues, where Republicans, having long-since morphed into Democrats, are now very weak -- and hoping to sneak their pacifism into office under the radar.

There is a lesson in this for the Republicans -- if they would bother to listen. The last time the Democrats ran everything the way they wanted, back in the Carter era, the results were disastrous. Reagan got elected because he offered an alternative to this. He got reelected because, although he was far from consistent, his leadership was an improvement over Carter's.

The Democrats are hoping to cash in on the failures of the Republicans to control spending and to fight a decisive war -- not by providing a real alternative, but by pointing out how poor a job the Republicans are doing. In other words the Republicans have become "Democrats Lite". The results have not been disastrous -- yet. The fact remains, however, that they have made the American public extremely unhappy and looking for an alternative. The real question is not whether the Democrats provide one (They do not.), but whether the Republicans will provide one. If they do not, and fast, they will have effectively already "nationalized" the election for the Democrats and they have better than even odds of losing control of at least one house of Congress.

And they will deserve it.

Rather than look at Bush's poll numbers and conclude that the way to stay in Congress is to turn into Democrats, the Republicans ought to consider the fact that we have been fighting a long, drawn-out, indirect (at best) war against a weak opponent. They should act quickly to (1) give the President the authority he needs to fight this war and (2) pressure him to act against Iran before it gets the bomb and uses it on our one ally in the Middle East, Israel. In short, Congress should declare war on Iran.

Bush's weak poll numbers are not a bad reflection on the patience of Americans or our willingness to fight this war. They are a reflection of the fact that we are tired of getting yanked around and asked to provide the good life to a bunch of savages in the Middle East instead of fighting that war. Bush is a lame duck. Forget him and save your our own hides by demonstrating that there is a real choice between the abject surrender offered by the Democrats and the slow wearing-down of American resolve caused by a long military campaign with no clear objective. (In the process of saving your own skins, you will incidentally provide a much-needed spine transplant to Bush.)

Otherwise, the Democrats will win, sooner or later, and then maybe "that opposition party that ought to have a chance to govern" from back in 1994 will reappear.

We're at war whether we choose to fight back or not. My hide is on the line. Please don't make me wait.

-- CAV