Thursday digest II

- A few words on the Iraq Study Group tonight.

I haven't read the report itself, so everything that I'm about to post is drawn on second-hand accounts. However, my understanding is that the 79 recommendations essentially boil down to this: things aren't going that great so Iran and Syria should be asked for help so that in a year American troops can pull out and hand things over to a homegrown Iraqi force.

I have blogged extensively on my views regarding the former. As for the latter, it's a nice idea, but how can we know what the next year will bring? Two leaders whose opinions I listen to, John McCain and Joe Lieberman, say that both of those paths are fraught with many potential issues, while another voice I admire, the Wall St. Journal editorial board, rightly suggests that "if the report helps to politically isolate John Murtha and the get-out-now left, its authors will have done some good" because it talks about a phased withdrawal rather than having America tap out like some jobber caught up in a Greg "The Hammer" Valentine figure four leglock.

National Review says the report is overly normative, while this Time article says that both al-Qaeda and radical Shi'ites would gain should the recommendation to leave be implemented. And no less an analyst than Robert Kaplan says that regime change was the right idea - just poorly handled - and the logical conclusion one can draw from this well-considered analysis from the Economist is that the answer is to go big by deploying an overwhelming number of troops.

Returning to the report itself, I hope to read at least the executive summary over the next couple of days, but as for now, I maintain the following. First, there is no question that the war is not going as well as coalition leaders would have hoped, but to pull out now would be a colossal mistake. America remains the leader of the free world. With all of its flaws, it is still the last, best hope for good in the Middle East and elsewhere. To quit now, or to commit to a pre-conceived pull out date, would be akin to saying that America just doesn't care enough about the mission in Iraq - which is to midwife a democracy in order to provide a competing option to Islamic extremism as an outlet for the hopeless. The next year is certainly crucial but it is premature to announce a pull-out date. To do so would signal to the terrorists that in one year, another failed state will have fallen into their hands from which to launch attacks against us and our allies because we refuse to live the way they want us to.

Second, sitting down across the table from Iran and Syria would both legitimize and reward them for fomenting terror. Is that the type of message that should be sent? Not at all. It would tell all aspiring jihadists that if you work hard enough to bring the West to its knees, you will be rewarded with capitulation. That is not the way to defeat Islamofascism. The way to defeat Islamofascism is by a war of attrition. It is not to give terrorists heart by confirming to them that they have indeed weakened you to the point of departure. It is not to recognize their sponsoring regimes as credible partners for some kind of false peace. It is by redoubling our efforts and speaking with one unified voice that we can quash the insurgents and make it safe for the Iraqi people by allowing them to move forward and build the type of society they want, free from fear of violence and repression from those who would rob them of the voice they are struggling to have heard.

This is the central issue of our time and our generation will be judged by our choice: victory or retreat.

The stakes are high but our own security depends on our willingness to see things through to the end in Iraq.

Freedom isn't free.