Bush is set to anger everyone, particularly those on the left, tonight by informing us he will surge the number of troops in Iraq.   Democrats will respond by saying they simply won't stand for a troop surge.   They'll say Bush is just disguising his "stay the course" policy.   Conservatives will run amok, claiming Democrats are anti-American, anti-military, and simply do not want America to ever win another war on foreign soil.   There may be an element of truth to each sides' claims.   But is Bush wrong for "staying the course" and are Democrats really averse to entering, engaging in, or winning wars?

There doesn't seem to be much question that Democrats won this past election less for their pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, lift the minimum wage platform than for the public's distaste for the rigors of war.   When the public was for war, Democrats spoke like hawks.   They were first on the anti-Saddam bandwagon, led by bandleader William J. Clinton, when the public was also anti-Saddam.   We've documented that enough already - I'll skip the exercise today.   What we're concerned with now is their current push to "redeploy" the troops - in other words withdraw them from Iraq.   That is similarly due to public sentiment.   Suffice it to say that if there is any question regarding this, it was dispensed with via the phrase "de-escalate, investigate, troops home now!"

So, where Democrats seem to fall down is in the area of leading the country during wartime.   They like to keep one finger on the pulse of America when it comes to these difficult questions.   Of course, war is always difficult.   And it requires leadership beyond the mere taking of polls.   Sergeants don't take polls of troops before leading the charge.   Officers don't poll sergeants before ordering the charge.   Soldiers need to be inspired to land on that beach or go up that hill where the other guy is standing, rifle at the ready to gun them down.   Similarly, the public needs to be led in wartime since it is their sons and, in modern times, daughters who are the ones being shot at.   Human beings, even American ones, are capable of incredible bravery and sacrifice but they need clear goals and near-blind faith in their leaders before they will put themselves, their sons and daughters in harms way.

War is unique among human endeavors.   It requires the courage of one's convictions - an instance in which it is necessary to have not only courage, but also convictions.   War is a condition of deprivation and sacrifice.   It requires the endurance of pain, both physical and psychic, in order to achieve a higher objective.   We often use the term loosely whenever we discuss approaches to difficult problems in which we must first endure pain before accomplishing something worthwhile.   We refer to the "war on drugs" as a war because we recognize we'll have to use excessive amounts of resources and efforts in order to erradicate a scourge upon society.   We talk of the war against obesity because we recognize there will be no gain without significant pain.   We talk of war whenever the efforts will initially seem more difficult than endurance of the condition being attacked.   We don't refer to war when the going will be easy.   And that is more true of traditional military campaigns than it is of the other efforts we describe as war.

Our founding father's recognized long ago that war is unique.   That is why they and many leaders since them have established such rigorous requirements before the government could declare and engage in war.   They understood that once war is entered, there is no turning back.   In order to be successful in military endeavors, one must decide upon a course and then follow it through regardless of initial outcome.   Military leaders can adapt but they must follow through on the overall course of action.   They cannot vacillate between differing strategies once hostilities have begun.   This principle is as true for a single firefight or battle as it is for the conduct of a war as a whole.

When American and British troops first stormed the beaches of Normandy, we took incredible casualties for precious little ground.   A perfectly objective view of the battle could have led some to conclude retreat was the best course of action.   Had all of America sat watching the battle unfold on their television screens, there is little question that the majority would have agreed had the generals decided to retreat before accomplishing their objectives.   Luckily, that wasn't a possibility.   A long time passed before our leaders, let alone the public, understood precisely what the costs of invading France were.   By the time they were fully informed, not only had we moved off the beach but the Battle of the Bulge was also over.

Similarly, the troops cruising toward beaches during our island hopping spree in the Pacific were not polled as to whether they agreed with battle plans before deciding whether or not to disembark.   Had the public been fully informed and consulted before or during some of these campaigns, retreat would have seemed the only option.   Yet we endured and the cost of the victory achieved has never been questioned.   So it is with winning war efforts.

Back in 2004, current Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi was interviewed by Tim Russert on his popular Sunday show "Meet The Press."   A review of the transcript yields the following exchange:

"MR. RUSSERT: What would you do in Iraq today right now?
REP. PELOSI: What I would do and what I think our country must do in Iraq is take an assessment of where we are.   And there has to be a leveling with the American people and with the Congress of the United States as to what is really actually happening there.   It's very hard to say what you would do.   We need more troops on the ground. General
MR. RUSSERT: American troops if necessary?
REP. PELOSI: Shinseki said this from the start, when you make an appraisal about whether you're going to war, you have to know what you need.
MR. RUSSERT: So you would put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: What I'm saying to you, that we need more troops on the ground.   I think it would be better if we could get them to be not American, that we could appeal to our European allies, NATO.   I agree with Senator Kerry in that respect to come...
MR. RUSSERT: But if they say no, would you put more American troops on the ground?
REP. PELOSI: Clear and present danger facing the United States is terrorism.   We have to solidify, we have to stabilize the situation in Iraq.   As secretary of state has said, "You break it, you own it."   We have a responsibility now in Iraq there.   And we have to get more troops on the ground.   But when General Shinseki said we need 300,000 troops, Secretary Wolfowitz said "wildly off the mark," because they knew a commitment of 300,000 troops would not be acceptable to the American people.   So they went in with false assumptions about rose petals, not rocket-propelled grenades, and we're in this fix that we're in now."

Two years later, on the same show, the following exchange took place:

"MR. RUSSERT: I saw in the USA Today in December of '05 this story, and I'll read it to you and our viewers.   "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi switched gears and embraced a call to begin an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq," which is quite striking, because in May of 2004 you were on this program, and I asked you specifically, "Should there be withdrawal of U.S. troops by a date certain," and this is exactly what you said.   Let's watch.
(Videotape, May 30, 2004):
MR. RUSSERT: A group called Win Without War had this to say. "There is no military solution in Iraq.   We, therefore, call upon our government to commit to ending the military and economic occupation of Iraq and withdrawing our troops by a date certain.   There is no justification for letting any young Americans be the last to die for a mistake."   Do you agree with that?
REP. PELOSI: No. I do not.   I believe that because of the mess that has been made in Iraq we have to stay to stabilize Iraq.   We have to secure the situation, because now, although it wasn't the case before the war, now it has become a hotbed of terrorist activity.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Why have you changed your view?
REP. PELOSI: Well, that was a year and a half later by the time I said what I said, and it was on the basis of some very expert advice.   As you know, Congressman Jack Murtha has 35 years of experience in protecting our men and women in uniform and being a champion for our national security.   I believe that we need a better plan.   Our troops - let's - I was just in the Persian Gulf.   Every chance I get I want to praise them for their valor, their patriotism and the sacrifice they're willing to make.   They've done their job.   But the plan - they deserve a better plan getting out of Iraq than the president, than the president gave them going in.
MR. RUSSERT: But Congress...
REP. PELOSI: But my - but what I called for there was not an immediate withdrawal.   That's how they characterized it.   What I did was to support what Mr. Murtha was saying, which was a responsible redeployment of troops over the horizon to protect our interests in case we were threatened by terrorism or our interests were threatened in the region.   The characterization of it was more of an immediate withdrawal than the actual proposal was.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, are you for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq with - by the end of the year?
REP. PELOSI: I - what our Democratic position is, and our real security agenda is, that 2006 must be a year of significant transition in Iraq.   It's time for the Iraqi people to take responsibility for their government and for their security.   And again, that we must have a plan that is worthy of these troops and their sacrifice and the sacrifice of the American people.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said that, in '04, that you were concerned about stabilizing Iraq, securing Iraq, that it has become a hotbed of terrorism activity.   Has anything changed?
REP. PELOSI: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it's secure? Do you think it's stable?
REP. PELOSI: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Do you think it's a hotbed for - of ...
REP. PELOSI: Yes.

So, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat party of which she is an important leader are sitting aboard ship, watching the battle unfold and deciding that we've taken too many casualties, that things aren't going well enough.   They've decided the only course is retreat.   What will they decide next year?   That we should have stayed the course but increased troops?   What about the year after that?   Is this any way to conduct a war?   Are Democrats leading the American people or are they following their constituency?