You hear it all the time: the best thing to do for our troops is to bring them home from Iraq now. Actually, the best thing to do for our troops is to being them home in victory. Bringing out troops home in defeat will undermine our national resolve and the perceived strength of our military, verify for rogue and potentially rogue nations that we can be easily defeated, and make any future international military action in which our military is involved far more dangerous. 

We call it a "surge" to make it special, but the surge of troops in Iraq that has achieved such positive results is nothing more than an increase in military resources available to stabilize the country. You have to ask: what would Iraq be like today if we had more resources in Iraq from the beginning? Joe Lieberman blames our lack of success in Iraq on Congressional underfunding. Congress will likely rationalize their funding levels on modest requests from the Military and the President. If the Senate and the House were as wise as they claim, they would funded the war from the beginning according to what was actually needed, not what was requested.

Sure, we want our troops home soon. If that is the end of the story, it is because we have been convinced by the Left and the Liberal media that victory in Iraq is impossible. The "surge" suggests otherwise, that persistence and sufficient resources might allow us to be successful in Iraq.

I'm a firm believer in walking softly in the world but carrying a big stick. Defeat in Iraq will with certainly whittle down the size of that stick, diminsh our influence in the world, make the world in general a safer place for tyrants, despots and terrorists, and return the world economy to bullets and blood rather than products and services.