It seems like Democrats in Congress, and even the talking heads that frequent the Main Stream Media's various cable news shows, are going to ignore all evidence that the surge in Iraq is working. Iraqi casualties are down, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is on the run, and the changing political landscape in al-Anbar Province is a promising start to the complex problem of curbing sectarian violence and convincing the Iraqi population to stand up and fight against al-Qaeda. It appears that no amount of progress on the ground is going to change the tactical situation in Washington however, with the majority party chomping at the bit to clench defeat from the jaws of victory.

I'm not a huge fan of "theoretical history," but I have to wonder what the political climate in the country would be like if fate has reversed our fortunes. What if the Supreme Court had handed down the decision that put Al Gore in the White House, through whatever botched recount, and he had to face the realities of a world at war? I think it's safe to assume that a Gore administration would've been just as oblivious to the threat lurking in the shadows of America before September 11th, 2001. I also think it's safe to assume that the intelligence community would've handed the same report to a Gore National Security Advisor and that they'd draw the same conclusions; that al-Qaeda was behind the attack, that Afghanistan was the primary target, and that various other nations are sponsoring or harboring terrorists. I don't imagine Al standing up and giving a "with us or against speech," but I imagine they would be watching for state sponsors of terror.

Let's cut to early 2003 under an Al Gore administration. By this point, various intelligence groups would've weighed in saying Iraq is a state sponsor of terror with links to al-Qaeda. Having been briefed in Congress, Republicans would be making a public case to go to war, and the American people would be just as willing to enter Iraq as they were under President Bush. Faced with a potential political disaster if he didn't act, what would Gore do? I don't see him sitting on his hands with an election just a year and a half away. Gore makes the move and decides to invade Iraq. We all know Gore is screaming about the Iraq War now, but hindsight is 20/20. For the purposes of hypothetical history, he makes the decision to go to war.

The 2004 election rolls by, with both nominees supporting the War in Iraq. Who knows who the GOP would've put up for the nomination, but for the purposes of this comparison, it doesn't matter, Gore sails to re-election. It's now 2006, 2007, and onward, with news coming in that the war is going to be a lot longer, a lot harder, and a lot costlier than anyone could've predicted. We're now facing multiple terrorists threats inside Iraq, from al-Qaeda to Iranian-backed militants. The death toll has passed 3,000 and the anti-war left has begun their call to leave Iraq. What would the Grand Old Party decide to do? We'd stick by Gore and our military and support victory, because that's the way we operate. I can hear the skeptics saying "It's easy to say that now," and it is, but there's some historical basis for my claim. Vietnam began under a Democrat, was escalated under a Democrat, and still, the Republican party ended up being the party for victory and "staying the course." As time passed, the Democrats elected more anti-war Senators and Congressman, and with the eventual nomination of Hubert Humphrey in 1968, it was clear that Democrats were going to cut-and-run from Vietnam. It didn't matter who started the war politically anymore, Republicans wanted victory. I believe the same would've happened under a Gore presidency.

I hear often that Democrats are simply playing politics with the war, but it's worse than that. Throughout history, the Democrat party has committed to victory but changed their minds when the going got rough. Dating all the way back to the Civil War, Democrats made names for theirselves (then copperheads), by opposing military action. This isn't a "peace" movement either, because this tendency even stretched through WW2, when radical Democrats opposed FDR knowing full well what a Hitler victory in Europe and a Japanese victory in the Pacific meant. This isn't a political issue, it's an ideological issue. The simple answer is, no matter how history writes her chapters, Republicans support victory for the United States and Democrats do not. That's how it's always been, and that's how it would be if our fates had been switched.