One of the most fascinating aspects of American history is best summed up by British writer and compiler of the first English language dictionary Dr. Samuel Johnson. In “TAXATION NO TYRANNY: AN ANSWER TO THE RESOLUTIONS AND ADDRESS OF THE AMERICAN CONGRESS,” Johnson responds to a petition from the Stamp Act Congress of 1765:

“How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”

This schizophrenic strain runs through American history from the Declaration of Independence—written by a slave owner—through today’s anti-religious left that seeks to secure freedom of religion by curtailing it for some.

American’s split personality was on full display this week with the release of the Washington Post poll showing that 70% of Americans now think the war in Iraq has had an “unacceptable” level of casualties while 56% believe the war wasn’t worth fighting in the first place. But this very same poll reveals that a strong 58% believe that American soldiers should stay in Iraq, even if casualties keep mounting, until “civil order” is restored. And a plurality (48%-44%) believe that our efforts to transplant democracy in Iraq is making “significant progress.”

How can one believe that the war wasn’t worth fighting in the first place and yet, at the same time, are desirous of our military staying there until the job is done?

If this were a simple case of opposition to the war, the voters would have tossed George Bush out on his ear on November 2. I believe what this poll reveals is an undercurrent of idyllic isolationism that’s been a part of the American psyche since our founding coupled with support for a hard-headed realism that’s become the hallmark of post war American foreign policy.

On the surface, it would seem that idealism and realism would be mutually exclusive. But when it comes to how we Americans see ourselves in relation to the rest of the world, they blend together and give life to the notion of American exceptionalism; the desire to be left alone while recognizing the need for engagement on a global scale to protect ourselves and advance our national interests.

As long as demonstrable progress can be made in Iraq, it seems pretty clear that support for the troops mission will continue. This is nothing new in American history. During the Civil War, despite massive casualties and a bleak military outlook for most of 1864 Presidential race, the American people gritted their teeth and went to the polls to re-elect Abraham Lincoln who promised them more of the same until the war was won. And if it hadn’t been for the galvanizing effect of Pearl Harbor which instilled a terrible resolve in the American people to defeat the Axis powers, who knows what would have happened in the 1944 election. At that time, there was no end in sight to the Pacific War and the cost of defeating Germany was rising precipitously through the summer and fall of 1944.

Is there a limit to the cost that the American people are willing to bear to win the peace in Iraq? No doubt. Have we reached that point yet? Not by a longshot. And to see those who oppose the war almost celebrating the WAPO poll results is despicable. The only conclusion one can reach by observing such an attitude is a desire to see the terrorists win and America lose. This can only happen if the United States accepts a humiliating defeat by abandoning Iraq to a fate that will be determined by Iranian-backed thugs. We used to call that treason. Now we call it “principled opposition.”

The attack this week in Mosul that left 15 Americans dead is part of the terrorists plan to disrupt the coming elections as well as sap the will of the American people to stay the course in Iraq. They seem to be enjoying success in the usual quarters. According to Capn’ Ed in
yesterday’s Washington Post, “Thomas Ricks gets a few people on record acting as though Mosul was some kind of Dieppe or Kasserine Pass instead of the skirmish it was:”

Not all experts were pessimistic. Retired Army Col. John Antal said he expects more spectacular attacks in the coming weeks, but mainly because “the enemy is on the ropes and desperate to stop the elections.”

But others were throwing up their hands. “This sure isn’t playing out like I thought it would,” said retired Marine Lt. Col. Jay Stout, author of a book about the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq, in which he fought. He said he is no longer confident about what the U.S. strategy in Iraq should be.”

The Capn’s riposte to Col. Stout is direct and to the point:

“If one attack by a rag-tag bunch of terrorists is all that it takes to have Col. Stout “throw up his hands” (the Post’s characterization, not Stout’s), then it’s a good thing that Stout retired instead of getting promoted.”

And according to Hindrocket over at Powerline who posts this email from a major at CENTCOM, a very different picture emerges:

“Our relationship to the enemy: We have the enemy down on his back and we are choking him to death. He can still scratch at our arms and draw blood but he can not alter his fate. Only we can relieve him of his doom by letting up. If we stay the course, he will die.”

Hindrocket also writes of the will of the Iraqi people and how strong the desire is for elections next month. This from a translation of an Iraqi editorial:

“Those who commit military operations under whatsoever titles, claims or pretexts are clear in their target. This clarity is proved by acts and not words as it is clear enough that slogans and nominations cannot withhold it.”

“The message is clear by targeting political process at its core; the elections, and then attacking people’s drive of rebuilding the state and authority on democratic bases that embody their will and interest following decades of dictatorship that oppressed peopleÂ’s rights of expressing options and decisions.”

Clearly, momentum is building for democracy. And just as clearly, the terrorists will begin to up the ante as elections draw near. While its certain that the American people will support the mission through the elections, how long will it take afterwards before the calls begin for troop withdrawals? Will this resonate with a public grown so pessimistic about the war’s purposes in the first place?

Somehow, I have to believe that the sight of Iraqi men and women standing in line for hours to vote—just as they did in Afghanistan—while risking life and limb to have an opportunity to have a say in their own future, will have a salutary effect on American attitudes towards the war.

It would be interesting to take another poll immediately after the Iraqi elections and query the American people on the exact same questions asked this past week. Somehow, I’m pretty sure those numbers would change dramatically…for the better.