It's a good thing the current crop of Democratic candidates weren't running for president in 1944. Instead of defeating Hitler and Tojo, we might have ended up with an "exit strategy" that saved American lives in the short run but cost us our freedom and way of life. Indeed, the Democrats' disgraceful performances to date suggest that most of the candidates would like to cut and run from Iraq, no matter what the consequences. Unfortunately, they've managed to convince a majority of their fellow party members that this is the right thing to do.
According to the latest Gallup Poll on the issue, 70 percent of Democrats want a full or partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Back in April, 54 percent of Democrats fully supported the war. Now, only 24 percent of Democrats -- but 88 percent of Republicans -- say they still support the war. This kind of partisan polarization is dangerous, especially when America faces perhaps the gravest threat in our nation's history.
Iraq is not Vietnam, no matter how much Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Sharpton, and the other Democratic presidential wannabes would like to pretend it is. As despicable as Ho Chi Minh was, he did not pose a direct threat to the United States. The Vietnam War was part of the larger struggle against communism. The ultimate adversary was the Soviet Union. Despite our withdrawal from Vietnam, we won the larger war, vanquishing communism and defeating the Soviet Union without firing a direct shot. History proved we could afford to lose Vietnam no matter how ignoble or humiliating it was. However, we cannot afford to lose Iraq.
In the post 9-11 world, Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed a direct threat to the United States. We know that Saddam had chemical and biological weapons -- he used them to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Kurds and Iranians, and never produced proof that he had destroyed the weapons after the 1991 war. We know that Saddam had nuclear ambitions, which he would most certainly have realized had the Israelis not taken out his nuclear reactor some 20 years ago.
The fact that we have not unearthed a cache of weapons of mass destruction as yet does not prove they never existed or that Saddam wouldn't try to rebuild an arsenal of such weapons if the opportunity arose.
Can any rational person believe that Saddam would not have been willing to provide those weapons to al Qaeda or some other terrorist group for the right price? And if we leave Iraq now without having rooted out the Baathists loyal to Saddam who remain, will we be safe from some future threat?
Linda Chavez is chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity and author of Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics .
Be the first to read Linda Chavez's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.
Afghan Woman Who Was Beaten To Death By Mob For Allegedly Desecrating The Koran Was Innocent | Matt Vespa
‘He’s Had His Run’: Group Wants to Replace Andrew Jackson with Influential Women on Twenty Dollar Bill | Cortney O'Brien
Headache: Three Shiite Militias Withdraw From The Fight In Iraq, ISIS Continues To Skim Millions From Iraqi Government Workers | Matt Vespa