Call in the cavalry

It is always a sure sign that one neither knows nor cares about Iraq if he or she buys into the masochistic myth that the source of jihadist violence is U.S. foreign policy. Those people now counsel deference to the "wise men" who cut their teeth under George H.W. Bush, whose aversion to "foreign adventures" apparently stands in pleasant contrast with current management.\nAs it happens, the "realists" bear heavy responsibility for the current travails in Iraq. From as early as 1991, these stability fanatics recommended that any opportunity to "address the root cause" and to remove a brutal dictatorial regime should be squandered. So Saddam and sons were left -- actually, confirmed -- in power. \nAt least two recent events suggest that members of this team have been brought back into the game. First was the elevation of Robert Gates -- former aid to the elder Bush's national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft -- to secretary of defense. Then was last week's publication of the Iraq Study Group's findings. The group stars James Baker, the former secretary of state to Bush pere. \nThere might have been some hope for a twist in the tale. Had those conservatives who were once so prudently dedicated to the status quo come to understand that it is no longer tenable, they might have been keenly aware what needs changed. Hence John Maynard Keynes' observation that conservatives can make very effective revolutionaries.\nBut alas, this hasn't played out. The Iraq Study Group has decided that the self-proclaimed parties of God and their masters should be given free reign in the region. This visible retreat to "realism" has given pause to every person who has thought a Bush Doctrine would be a wonderful thing to support if it ever really existed. The political class has lauded such a failure of nerve as the means to "peace with honor" in Iraq. Of course, handing such a terrible victory to those who practice nihilistic violence would be nothing of the sort.\nIt's always been easy to disparage the "export of liberty." But though the American project in Iraq has found many willing "collaborators" all over the country (and region), it was not born of brash idealism. President George W. Bush's diplomacy of freedom was issued out of the furies of Sept. 11, which were visited upon us by a corrupt and oppressive political order in the Arab Muslim world.\nThe ostensible abandonment of that muscular idealism is enough to make every neoconservative weep. But here is what can be said with certainty: Mr. Bush seems to recognize that both America's interests and principles dictate victory. As I wrote awhile back, borrowing from the 18th-century play, "Cato," this is fine because victory, though never guaranteed, can be deserved. \nYet it is now generally decided that Iraq is a losing cause. If so, I am unaware of any better losing cause than solidarity with embattled Democrats as we fight against our mutual enemies -- and the enemies of civilization. There is no alternative to keeping our nerve. The consequences of this cause being lost are too terrible to contemplate.