Why don't the Democrats argue that our presence in Afghanistan is equally provocative to the terrorists? One would think it would be more so. Nor is it the case that before the allied (remember the others?) invasion, Iraq was irrelevant to the terrorist threat worldwide. Saddam was a faithful and generous supporter of numerous terror groups -- a fact cited by the many Democrats who voted for the war.

But even assuming (and it's a dubious assumption) that America would be better off if Saddam were still in power, there is the problem of reality. We are faced with either perseverance and determination to support Gen. David Petraeus and his so far pretty successful strategy to stabilize the country, or we can unilaterally decide to declare defeat.

Now, if you want to see a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, you cannot possibly do better than this story line: "We chased them out of Iraq just as we chased the Soviets out of Afghanistan. They cannot defeat us! All of their smart bombs and guided missiles and up-armored Humvees cannot defeat a few soldiers of Allah!"

If the Democrats' withdrawal script is followed in Iraq, as it was in Vietnam, there is no question that the resulting violence will make today's chaos seem like an idyll. John Burns, the respected reporter for The New York Times, recently offered the view that "the United States armed forces here -- and I find this to be very widely agreed amongst Iraqis that I know, of all ethnic and sectarian backgrounds . . . are a very important inhibitor against violence. . . . I think it's a much larger truth that where American forces are present, they are inhibiting sectarian violence, and they are going after the people, particularly al Qaeda and the Shiite death squads, who are provoking that violence."

Never say "it can't get worse." It reveals a terrible poverty of imagination.