Leaving Iraq in defeat will end America’s role as the global superpower. Pax Americana will be over and the beginning of a dangerous new period of jockeying for position in the world order will be accompanied by the uncertainty and unease which greets all momentous change.

Iraq represents to the world a test of American fortitude. Friend and foe alike sense that the United States lacks the stamina for conflict, even on the low intensity level found in Iraq. They look to our retreats from Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993) when we sustained casualties, our lack of, or muted reaction to the first World Trade Center attack, the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Africa, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole by al-Qaeda. They see our lack of action regarding the North Korean nuclear test and the declared determination of Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. Our enemies are becoming more emboldened. Regularly the United States is taunted by Hugo Chavez and the Iranian president. China surfaces a submarine alongside one of our aircraft carriers. The Syrians murder a Lebanese government official who opposed them. The Russian KGB president has opponents murdered in England. The debate in the United States among the chattering classes appears focused not on victory in Iraq but on how best to withdraw. All of this communicates an unmistakable message of weakness which excites our enemies and worries our allies.

I think it beyond contradiction that the majority of the American political elite, both Democrat and Republican, wish to bug out of Iraq without regard to the consequences. They are only looking for a fig leaf rationale to allow the act to be labeled somehow a thing of honor, as if painting lipstick on a pig makes the pig a beautiful woman. What passes now for "realism" among the Council on Foreign Relations types would in a more honest time be called what it is: cowardice and betrayal. What was once unacceptable and hateful, i.e., the abandonment in the field of friends and allies who are risking life and property to fight with us, is now urged by some as an appropriate policy.

If the so-called leaders of the nation lack the fiber to sustain the Iraqi conflict when considering the historically low casualties, then the United States has no business deploying forces overseas again. Any probable enemy now knows the Achilles heel of the American people and understands that defeating the American military in battle is unnecessary so long as it can the practice modern warfare of the jihadist: manipulate the American media, which is ever eager to broadcast the worst about the military; engage in hit and run operations on a periodic basis to inflict a few deaths on American units; intimidate the local civilian population by acts of terrorism and murder, to disrupt daily life and leave the impression of chaos. An enemy with the stamina to hold out for more than a few months will almost certainly prevail. Since the American elites who dictate policy lack the staying power to prevail in a conflict involving any casualties for any period of time, it makes little sense to waste lives and treasure sending forces abroad into any possible zone of combat. Liberals would find this situation agreeable, since they think the only good use of the U.S. military is in humanitarian operations anyway.

If we are not going to fight to win, what justifies the hundreds of billions of dollars expended on the military? If we lack the backbone to sustain a conflict when our nose gets a little bloodied, what is the rationale for maintaining troops in harm’s way? If we lack the will the backup our warnings with real force, why should anyone be worried about what we say?

Americans will find that accepting defeat in Iraq has consequences far greater in scope and danger than the abandonment of South Vietnam. The home front will be a caldron of bitter recriminations splitting the nation. A large portion of the American public does not and will not accept a political class dominated by defeatists who for the second time in a generation engineered an American defeat.   When the epic scale of the calamity which has befalling American interests becomes more apparent, there will be a reckoning in this country rivaling that which presaged the Civil War. Contemporaneously, it is inevitable that an American pullout from Iraq will lead to the collapse of the Iraqi government, resulting in adjacent countries intervening in Iraq for their various reasons. The Middle East will collapse into regional war involving nations and sects dominated by barbarians more suited for the 7^th than the 21^st century.    The butchery will be unimaginable and the potential use of nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction probable.

Meanwhile, China will move against Taiwan.   Does anyone really believe that the American people would support a war with China over Taiwan? Stated a bit differently, does China or Taiwan believe that the United States would fight to protect Taiwan, for the perception these nations have will dictate their policy and what happens.   If I were an official in Taiwan, I would not count of the United States to come to my defense, no matter how many times our government offers assurances.  If I were the defense minister of any nation dependent on the United States for assistance in the event of attack, I would be convening my staff to reassess my plans.

Throughout 1950's, 60's and even into the early 70's the communists in China always referred to the United States as a "paper tiger." It seems the characterization was about 40 years premature.