No more moderates

It has been a mighty long time coming. With President Bush's commitment to redouble rather than reduce efforts for victory in Iraq, the debate over the war has taken a new and necessary turn. A bipartisan consensus has grown around the idea that, in the words of the Democratic leadership, "it is time to bring the war to a close." Bush recently told author Bob Woodward that he would not withdraw from Iraq even if his wife and dog were the only people left on his side. With a cowardly and reserved Congress, assisted by a media that is at the service of such a sickly consensus, that jest may very soon be put to the test.\nIn this political environment, it must rate as an act of singular presidential courage that President Bush has fired his generals responsible for the failing strategy in Iraq and appointed one -- David Petraeus -- who believes in classic counterinsurgency doctrine. Now space has been made in the national debate for some oppositional heat, and with it, light.\nHigh time, too. Up until now, the agreed strategy has been that as Iraqi units are trained, they should replace American forces in the field. The failure of this strategy has given rise to a new one -- outlined by Mr. Bush last week -- that disposes with the premise that American reductions should be in a linear relationship to Iraqi training. The new strategy views Iraqi units as supplements to coalition forces rather than as substitutes. This crucial distinction allows for a greater combined force with which to lead and sustain offensive operations.\nWhatever one's view of the decision to join the war on the Iraqi front, it cannot be denied that President Bush has learned, not a moment too soon, how to execute his constitutional role as commander in chief. He thus has seized an opening precisely when it looks to be closing. Modern as this escalation seems (with the inevitable comparison to Vietnam invoked by poor historians), who would withhold his assent that it has a more antique ring to it? The parallel with the dark days of the Civil War cannot be escaped.\nWith open calls being made to end the war, Abraham Lincoln decisively took command by firing his most timorous general, George Brinton McClellan, for failing to engage the enemy. For this, the unpopular president was forced, as Bush is now, to take almost sole ownership of the war. Preparing for the worst, Lincoln argued that the maintenance of the Union and its principles required further bloodshed. One-time supporters of the war jumped ship, as now, making a divisive issue of the new course set by the captain. \nGranted, Lincoln isn't the exact mirror image of the current executive. But Bush's presidential courage is the purest demonstration we're ever likely to see of Lincolnian virtue. And this is especially fortunate, because were we to flinch now, the consequences for national honor and international liberty do not bear consideration -- except among those who need to concentrate their minds.