Below is a guest contribution from Uncle Jimbo of Blackive ...

Jed Babbin asked a number of questions about what constitutes victory on the blog here and seemed underwhelmed by the responses he got so here are my answers to his queries.

 First, the choice is not between nation building and defeat.  No one has answered my point about the fascination with Iraqi democracy allowing the enemy control the pace and direction of the war.

The fascination currently is not with Iraqi democracy as much as not allowing what passes for Iraqi democracy currently to fail and become a sanctuary for Sunni terror and Al Qaeda and Shia extremists proxying for Iran. The method chosen to transition Iraq from a tyranny and state sponsor of terror was democratization following a military invasion. It was well-intentioned if ineffective thus far. Abandoning our exercise in nation building now would confer victory on AQ and Iran in the battle for dominance in Mesopotamia and worse would give AQ an actual victory in combat against the entire US military machine. All else aside, that is a good enough reason to stay and win.  More of my impertinent retort to one of NRO's finest after the jump.

We gain little by abandonment and would leave exactly what you say is the raison d’etre for our whole effort, the elimination of terrorist states. If Iraq were not a state sponsor it would surely be a state sanctuary absent US forces or a victory allowing us to leave an Iraqi government capable of stopping that.

Second, no one - least of all my distinguished correspondents - gives any reason why we should expect democracy to ever arise in the Arab states or anywhere else that radical Islam takes root.  Merely saying that it's what we want isn't a definition of victory: it's a recipe for quagmire and defeat.

We can determine that democratization was a failure based on the incomplete record of our now barely 5 year old effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, or we can remember that 5 years is a rounding error in history. It is not is a rounding error in politics, but an eternity,  and that is the problem we face. If we had the ability and inclination we could have a democratization experiment in Iraq with a 25 or maybe 50 year time frame. That would allow a real look at whether it was a viable means of combating Islamist terror. We don't have the luxury and we may have to conclude that given the short attention span and lack of stomach of the American people that it was a bad choice as strategy. The current situation is hardly dispositive of democratization as a method, positive or negative though.

Third, what is wrong with leaving once we've defeated an enemy? I refuse to spend one single American life in pursuit of democracy there, or anywhere else.  Once the enemy is defeated, our job as Americans - especially American conservatives - is over.

Only if you take a simplistic view of the job of an expeditionary force out toppling regimes and then shuffling off. I would also point out that this is the Victory Caucus and not the Conservative Caucus so I don't think there should be a requirement that a solution be inherently conservative as much as simply successful. I shared some of your views in that, rather than invade, I supported taking Sadaam and key regime leaders out in a decapitating strike and this technique could easily be adapted for any state sponsoring terror. But will that actually make terror less or more likely? You have no better answer for that than democratization advocates have for their policy. If we are going to take actions to topple regimes sponsoring terror, we need a better end game than here are the keys to your country, good luck. Once we have crushed their state sponsor, they will recruit from those we alienate by taking military action, and set up in what is now a state powerless to stop terrorists from operating in it. So we swap state sponsorships for sanctuaries in a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.

Fourth, if we are to implant democracies there, who among us is prepared to commit to what is plainly necessary to do so?  You want democracy in Iraq or Iran or Syria? You'd better be prepared to do what the British did in India.  Several hundred thousand soldiers, tens of thousands of bureaucrats and administrators will be necessary to establish the American Colonial Office, and they will be needed there for a hundred years or more.  If you're not prepared to do that, please do not bother me with thoughts of creating democracy in Iraq, Iran or Syria.

Defeat the enemy and his ideology.  Then come home.  If we have to do it again in ten or twenty or fifty years, so be it.  As Mike Ledeen would say, "faster, please."

You have argued against democratization as a tool to create states that will not sponsor terror after we have decapitated or otherwise toppled their governments. You do not offer a viable plan for victory beyond that. What leads you to believe that after a violent overthrow of a government deranged enough to sponsor terror, that the entity that organically appears would not support or tolerate or simply be incapable of interdicting the terrorists amongst it's population? Your plan only defeats the enemies we can engage militarily and does nothing to combat it's ideology.

I have no way of knowing whether democratization in Iraq or anywhere will work. But our avowed strategy in Iraq is just that and we can either cede victory to AQ and Iran and hope that what arises after the Sunni/Shia battles is something other than a Balkanized set of sectarian sanctuaries, or we can maintain our resolve for at least the short term and aim for victory. That victory may simply be the defeat or marginalizing of Shia militias and Sunni bombers, and may not be a shining example but it would be other than defeat, and that is victory enough in Iraq. Now going forward any and all strategies for dealing with bad state actors would be in play including your whack 'em and walk, democratization and hopefully many others.

Today’s vote in the House will be significant only for the light it will cast on the Republicans.  We know the Democrats are committed to defeat in Iraq, and Congressman Murtha is the gift of clarity that keeps giving.
 

But we will also get the outlines of the extent of the White Flag Republicans, and while not all of them will draw the same level of ire as term-limit pledge breaking “Lawnboy” Ric “It Runs Like A Deere” Keller, the WFRs will not escape that designation even if the war goes well and Iraq stabilizes.  At a crucial moment, they bolted.
 

They are leaving behind a House GOP badly scarred.  I doubt very much if the message isn’t getting through or the NRC or the NRCC.  The latter will have to radically restructure if it is to get grassroots appeal back.  I won’t be giving to the NRCC because it will be supporting WFRs.
 

The best NRCC Chairman Tom Cole could do now is get busy identifying the 2008 challengers to defeatist Democrats.  The lassitude displayed thus far is very troubling.  There is great passion among the victory voters, but they cannot put it to any use because the GOP has not given them anything to fight for.  The sudden growth of the Victory Caucus hints at this desire to engage , and all that energy could be turned towards electing serious candidates, preferably experienced veterans familiar with the stakes and especially with Iraq and Afghanistan and the enemy, but the House GOP leadership seems indifferent to the base, and glued to a political calendar that was used in the era before new media or the war arrived.  Many have observed that the left is far ahead in the organizational understanding of politics on the web, and rarely has that been as obvious as the past three weeks.  Obvious, but unacted on.
 

I had assumed that after the November elections the GOP on the Hill would hear what everyone was saying to them.  But it turns out they got the slogans down, but internalized nothing of the need to engage in a completely different approach to the debates ahead.  They are almost completely powerless in the House, and thus are only a rhetorical force.  They have nothing but arguments to make to the public, but they are getting rolled in debate after debate because there is no party position that hasn’t been undercut by backbenchers, and there is not anything approaching a communications strategy.
 

“Hapless” is the word that comes to mind.  The congressional representatives of the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Reagan have never been collectively less committed to victory and less able to communicate than today .

Hmm.  I've been accused of a lot, but not petulance.  And I'm still wondering how people are going to answer my main points.

First, the choice is not between nation building and defeat.  No one has answered my point about the fascination with Iraqi democracy allowing the enemy control the pace and direction of the war.

Second, no one - least of all my distinguished correspondents - gives any reason why we should expect democracy to ever arise in the arab states or anywhere else that radical Islam takes root.  Merely saying that it's what we want isn't a definition of victory: it's a recipe for quagmire and defeat.

Third, what is wrong with leaving once we've defeated an enemy? I refuse to spend one single American life in pursuit of democracy there, or anywhere else.  Once the enemy is defeated, our job as Americans - especially American conservatives - is over.

Fourth, if we are to implant democracies there, who among us is prepared to commit to what is plainly necessary to do so?  You want democracy in Iraq or Iran or Syria? You'd better be prepared to do what the British did in India.  Several hundred thousand soldiers, tens of thousands of bureaucrats and administrators will be necessary to establish the American Colonial Office, and they will be needed there for a hundred years or more.  If you're not prepared to do that, please do not bother me with thoughts of creating democracy in Iraq, Iran or Syria. 

Defeat the enemy and his ideology.  Then come home.  If we have to do it again in ten or twenty or fifty years, so be it.  As Mike Ledeen would say, "faster, please."

President Reagan said it best: "We win, they lose!" 

Al Qaeda must be discredited, humiliated and emasculated  We must find them wherever they hide--they have sent large numbers of jihadis to Iraq--and we will hunt them down like the dogs that they are.  No mercy.

Running away from Iraq is running away from Al Qaeda. 

I am shocked and dismayed that a former Marine officer could ever espouse a plan to "undermine the president's foreign and national security policy."

The mask has been ripped off.  This "strategy" isn't a plan to extricate our forces from Iraq. It is a roadmap for defeat. Murtha, of all people, should know this. The shocking part is that I believe that he does know this, and that America's defeat is, in fact, his objective. Sadly, it's the very troops who Murtha and his colleagues in Congress claim to "support" that will pay the price--in blood--for this political gambit.

As I wrote in my letter to Congress, I assert that the only honorable course of action for those who (mistakenly) believe the military cannot succeed in Iraq is to extricate us immediately from that country.  But it appears that Murtha does not intend to take the honorable route.

As a military officer, I am constrained by the Uniform Code of Military Justice from fully expressing my true feelings regarding Congressmen Murtha and his friends in the Defeat Caucus .

But you are not. 

“Day by day, fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it.” - Thucydides, The Funeral Speech for Pericles

Well, look what happened…sitting in my hooch in the Panamanian jungle, I never would have thought that this former NCO and Officer would someday be here with the likes of Jed and Hugh debating the most important topic of our day.

I agree with a lot of what both Hugh and Jed offer up to you all.  And some of it, I disagree with.

Before the start of the war in Iraq, and often in interviews and on Blackfive, I’ve stated that I thought we needed to activate the entire force (Guard, Reserves, IRR, and retirees as needed) for the duration of the war, plus six months.

That kind of go-to-war mentality was what we used during WWII.  This threat to our freedom – heck, the WORLD’S freedom – is no different.

While Hugh is correct in that not much will come from criticizing the President at this point in his tenure, I believe that it’s important to point out that the administration has wasted the opportunity to get our country on a war footing time and time again.  If it’s too late for President Bush to get that message, maybe the next President will get it…

Next, Jed is absolutely correct in that we must take on the nations that sponsor terror.  This doesn’t mean invasion, or even a military solution, but it does mean that there must be a price extracted from those behind terror – and that price must be so absolutely dear that they either foreswear terror or are replaced by those who will.  We can influence them in other ways, too.

Pro ejemplo, we could send China a telegram:

Hi, China. STOP

It’s been awhile.  STOP

Hey, last time I was in Bejing I noticed a lot of Audi A6s.  STOP

We would like Iran to end activities with regards to Iraq.  STOP

We know that you have an interest in Iran.  STOP

Because, um, we’re about to drop a nuke on the Iranian oil fields.  STOP

Just thought you should know.  STOP

Hope the wife and kids are good. STOP

Don’t be a stranger.  STOP

That process must be combined with a strategy in order to defeat the radical Islamic ideology.  We might have been able to argue about our superiority to Soviet-style Communism, but we beat them economically, not militarily (at least, not by force).  In many cases, I’m not sure that we can break the hold of radical Islam without some serious nation building efforts. 

Of course, I think each sponsor of terror will have to be handled differently. Economics will play better in some areas than others.  We dropped the ball economically in Iraq.  When farmer Omar makes more from a market or a subsidy than he does from AQ for planting an IED, we’ll make progress.

Victory to me will be the defeat of the sponsors of terror.

While there will be some states throughout our future that will find a way to sponsor terror, they will be severely diminished to the point where our children won’t grow up fearing it.

Of course, we can't really begin to proceed to a real victory until, like our soldiers,  the majority of our politicians know their duty and have the courage to do it. 

The nascent Iraqi democracy is neither the center of gravity in this war nor is its success or failure determinative of victory or defeat.  In Iraq, we are fighting Iraqi insurgents and proxies of our central enemies.  No one ever won a war by fighting the enemy’s proxy.  They won it by taking the battle to the enemy and defeating him at his center of gravity. We recognize that Islamofascist terror is not a significant threat to us without the sponsorship of nations.  We mean to defeat the radical Islamist ideology (for that is what it is, not a religion) as we defeated the Soviet communist ideology.  The ideological war is one we aren’t even fighting.  We fought communism – in part – by arguing relentlessly that American freedoms were objectively superior to Soviet enslavement.  We can defeat the Islamofascist ideology by using these same tools… We won’t wait for Islam to be reformed or to win the hearts and minds of the mullahs in Tehran.  We don’t consider Islam unreformable: but we understand that it is unreformable by non-Muslims.  And we understand that the only way to spur Muslims to accomplish that reformation is to break the hold radical Islam has over a growing number of nations…Not a single American life should be spent on nation building.

There’s a lot there that I take issue with, but I’ll start with the most obvious contradiction.  Jed seems to be suggesting that we take the war to Iran and Syria.  Fine.  I’m good with that.  But he also insists that once we militarily slap down the Syrians and Iranians, America should then refuse to do nation building the same way my petulant maid declines to do windows.

If we leave a power vacuum in Middle Eastern countries, what does Jed think will fill those vacuums?  Does he think there are be-turbaned Jeffersons and Hamiltons waiting in the wings to develop peaceful, Western-oriented democracies?  I doubt he thinks that, but just to be clear – there aren’t.

WHAT I REALLY DON’T LIKE about Jed’s manifesto is the dangerous amount of wishful thinking that it offers.  For too long, the Bush administration has allowed its fondest desires for the way the world should be to prohibit a hard-headed look at the way it actually is.  We’ve seen yet another example of this dangerous habit just this week as the administration has signed an agreement with North Korea that ludicrously relies on the goodwill and sanity of Kim Jong Il.

And North Korea is a cupcake of a problem compared to the Middle East.  Obviously, Radical Islam isn’t favorably disposed to our decadent way of life that includes our annoying habit of not facing Mecca five times a day.  I think everyone knows that by now.

What is less well known is that ordinary Islam, as it is practiced in the countries that are predominantly Islamic, is also hostile to our freedoms and modus viviendi.  The Endgame conservatives seem to think that if we can somehow get the word out to the women of Islamic societies that they can shed their burkas and head down to the secretarial pool, all will be well.

Also implicit in this thinking seems to be the idea that if Islamic countries are made to pay such a high price for their belligerent ways, they will opt for a more American lifestyle.  Overlooked in this analysis is the fact that a country couldn’t have been worse off than Afghanistan was.  Or Somalia.  Or the Sudan.  And none of these places embraced an America-friendly outlook.

HERE’S THE DISTURBING REALITY – whoever is governing Iran over the next generation will not lack for funds.  Same goes for Iraq. And Saudi Arabia. They’ve all got oil, and even if we stopped buying from them, the rest of the world wouldn’t. Oil being a fungible good, we can only put a small dent in their governments’ revenues, nothing more.  If we decline to nation-build, we will have hostile regimes with the means to do us harm.  Since Jed and I agree that hostile regimes are a menace we can’t afford to tolerate, I find it odd that he only wants to take measures to present-day depose hostile regimes while being apparently willing to leave the nature of the regimes that take their place up to fate.

Nation building stinks.  Running counter-insurgencies is even worse.  But we have no other choice, morally or pragmatically.  In a way, it would simplify our situation if tomorrow the entire Middle East elected popular governments and those new governments then promptly declared war on us.  Then we would know who we’re fighting, the depth and scale of the problem, and the steps necessary to achieve an unambiguous victory would be obvious.

So, to return to the foundational issue, what does victory look like?  Jed pronounces that “victory means ending – by force if necessary – state sponsorship of terrorism. Nothing more, nothing less.” While it’s true that Saddam Hussein won’t be sponsoring any more terrorism, it’s far less clear that whoever winds up on top of the heap in Iraq will be equally non-threatening.    Toppling regimes won’t end state sponsorship of terrorism.  Neither will all our persuasive wiles.

This war, like all other wars before it, will be won with blood and steel.  V-Day will come when not a single Middle Eastern regime or its body politic wants war more than peace and prosperity.  How do we get there?  We start by winning in Iraq.  An Iraq that plays peacefully in the global sandbox with the rest of the international community will hopefully show a better way for her neighbors.

Will the larger war go on a long time?  Yes.  Will we be plagued by vagaries?  Constantly.  Will there be frustrations, deaths and suffering on the home front?  No doubt.

This is our reality.  There’s no “endgame” imminent or available.  Suggesting otherwise is to merely indulge in self-deception.

Dear Members of Congress,

As a veteran of the war in Iraq and a currently serving military officer, I am writing to respectfully express my strong opposition to House Concurrent Resolution 63.  We appreciate your expressions of support.  But this resolution does not help us.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was authorized by the United States Congress.  You cannot wash your hands of this responsibility.  It is not my place, nor my intention, to instruct you how to do your job.  I may only give you my perspective as a loyal American citizen, who is proud to serve his nation during these tumultuous times.

In my view, there are only two honorable courses of action for Congress to take regarding the war in Iraq.  The first option is to get behind the war effort.  While the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated over the past year, the situation is not beyond hope.  The Iraqi Army has gained in strength, competence and confidence.  Moqtada al Sadr has fled the country.  The terrorist Zarqawi has been killed, and the Sunni Arabs are banding together in an increasingly successful effort to expel the remnants of al Qaeda from their communities. 

All of this would not have been possible without the hard work of the U.S. military.  But if we were to leave tomorrow, we would abandon the long-suffering Iraqi people to the terrorists and extremists.  Such an outcome would not sit well with my conscience, nor should it with yours...

I will not pretend to understand the pressures you face from your constituents.  But I will remind you that brave Americans are sacrificing, fighting and dying every day in Iraq.  To succeed in our mission, we require steadfast leadership from our Commander-in-Chief, moral support from the American people, and material support from the United States Congress. 

The responsibility lies with you.  I have no use for empty, non-binding resolutions.  If you believe that a positive outcome in Iraq is impossible, then you should act on that conviction and withdraw us from that country.  But if you are truly serious about supporting the troops, I urge you to give us the money, tools, and manpower that we need to achieve victory.

Once again, I humbly thank you for your support.

Very respectfully,

"Joe Gish"

Jed, welcome to the Victory Caucus, and thanks for a great opening question.

Now, would the real Jed Babbin please start posting?

The Bush Adminsitration, from the president down, has been committed to victory since the war came to America on 9/11.  Victory has meant the security of America from other 9/11 attacks,  a metric that demanded not only upon the overthrow of the Taliban and Saddam, but the replacement of those regimes with governments committed to builidng states that refused to allow terrorists a safe haven in the future.

Two more regimes exist that sponsor terrorists that would gladly mount a 9/11 attack on the U.S. if their masters would allow it: Iran and Syria.

Victory thus means the toppling of those regimes and their replacement with governments that suppress rather than empower terrorists.  It also means the suppression of Hezbollah, and radical jihadist elements throughout the Islamic world.

That's what vicotory looks like: A new map of the world that does not include any countries that either overtly endorse or covertly support terrorists.

That may require some nation-building.  It may be "neo-Wilsonian."  It will certainly be hard, expensive, sorrow-filled, and dependent on the courage and competence of the American military and the political will of the Congress and future presidents to keep reminding the American people that the alternative to victory is another 9/11, or two or three more.

I don't think anything is gained by blasting the president or his team, though there is much to be gained by debating teactics and strategy in the war.   The crucial ingrediant to victory will be the will of the president, whomever he or she may be, to not allow a return to the lassitude and fecklessness of the '90s.  The Victory Caucus will disagree on many things, and hoefully as its numbers grow, that debate will be vigorous and blunt.  But I also hope it recognizes that every president for the foreseeable future is going to have to make very difficult choices about the war, each one of which will be subject to endless second-guessing, and many of which will be wrong.  What we will need more than anything else, as Hamilton recognized long ago, is "energy in the executive," an energy employed in the prosecution of the war.