1) What does the left want in Iraq?

Closure. Immediate closure. Which would entail defeat. But that doesn’t seem to bother them much.

2) Why do they want defeat?

Let’s start with the good faith assumption that there are members of the left who think that the situation in Iraq is beyond salvation and thus it makes sense to not sacrifice a single additional American life. Let’s further assume that these people always wished the war effort well, and are as disappointed as all heck that things haven’t worked out well.

3) How big is that group?

I don’t know. Nobody knows. But I have a feeling I could fit them all in my living room. Comfortably. Then again, I have a relatively large living room. Not a John Edwards-sized living room, but still a pretty big one.

4) What are the other strata of lefties who pine for defeat?

First there are the people who have been against the war since the beginning. Trust me as a reader of their blogs and their newspapers – they have greeted every single American setback for four years with barely-disguised enthusiasm. What’s more, every advance has drawn their ire and fury. If you think back to the president’s infamous stroll about the aircraft carrier, you’ll recall their rage. They weren’t enraged because they thought the war effort was about to go south. They were furious because they thought the war had succeeded. The fact that the war-effort went into the crapper was a happy yet unexpected bonus.

And then there are the people who seek political advantage by declaring defeat in Iraq. These include both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans who claim to have had an epiphany in recent days and who are voting against the surge as merely a stop on their way to Murtha-ville are perhaps the most contemptible residents in our body politic as of this writing.

I would be remiss of I did not note that of the groups I’ve outlined who are pining for defeat, none are mutually exclusive.

5) Are liberals indifferent to what would happen in Iraq if we just up and left?

Sort of. A couple of weeks ago Charles Krauthammer, America’s finest columnist, wrote a piece that will probably wind up as the year’s most-quoted op-ed column. Krauthammer concluded his essay by saying, “Iraq is their country. We midwifed their freedom. They chose civil war.”

Doctor Krauthammer hasn’t gone all Murtha on us. But look for this concluding phrase to become a battle cry for retreat, anyway. We gave them freedom, they messed it up. In short, to coin a phrase, screw them.

6) But Murtha seems to have a different theory, doesn’t he?

Yes. Murtha feels that once we withdraw, the Iraqis will rout Al Qaeda and peace will break out all over. Let’s just call this magical thinking. Or the height of cynical leadership. “Tomato – tomahto” as they say.

7) But this is a serious issue. The left rightly has its collective undies in a twist over the humanitarian disaster in Darfur. Shouldn’t they be equally concerned about precipitating an even worse humanitarian disaster in Iraq?

Aaah, you’ve hit the nub of it. This is one of the reasons that William Odom has become a momentary hero for some on the left. In his interview with Hugh last week, Odom stated that what ultimately happens in Iraq will happen regardless of America’s actions. It’s almost like Odom was saying a Calvinist type of pre-destiny awaits the Iraqis and there’s nothing that the world’s preeminent military power can do to alter their fate in the slightest.

To many, this would seem a strange sentiment. And yet it has been embraced on the left. Let’s call it more Murtha Magical Thinking.

8) Isn’t it also part of the “warrior chic” that has become such a fixture of liberal politics the last few years? If you served in the military, you can say the craziest things and still have absolute moral authority.

Yes, the left has become very much enamored with its chicken-hawk trope. In a way, I feel bad for them. They love it now, but what they’re effectively doing is delegitimizing the opinion of anyone who disagrees with someone who wore the uniform.

If they think the chickenhawk argument is strong, wait until they see its converse – the just plain chicken argument. Imagine a veteran who supports a war running against a war opponent who has never served. Oh the humanity!

9) But it doesn’t seem like either trope, the chickenhawk or the chicken-chicken one, should carry much weight. There are millions of veterans. Surely one could find a veteran to support every conceivable idea.

Of course. And biography will only take you so far. Let’s call that the John Kerry Axiom.

10) Well, he made it pretty far. In spite of the absence of any identifiable political talent, they were calling him “Mr. President” on the afternoon of Election Day ’04. You’d be well advised to not minimize the power of biography.

True enough.

11) One more thing – isn’t it almost inconceivable that some liberals would put partisan advantage over their country’s best interests in regards to such a critical matter?

Not at all. It’s a story as old as the hills. Or at least Robert Byrd anyway.

For today’s edition of my weekly Sunday Book Review, I’m reviewing Ariel Sharon’s autobiography “Warrior.” Sharon writes in some detail of how Israel’s Labor Party actively undermined Israel’s war in Lebanon to rout the PLO. At the time Likud was in power. It was Likud’s fourth year in power; up until 1977, Labor had always run Israel.

Labor was aghast that the war was succeeding. Although Labor was ostensibly Israel’s peace party, Likud had already signed a peace treaty with Egypt and was about to sign one with Lebanon after expelling the PLO. That would make two more peace treaties in the region than Labor had gotten done in almost 30 yerars.

In an emergency meeting of Labor Party players, party chief Shimon Peres described the crisis:

“Contrary to our previous suspicions, the war is a big success. It is about to reach its most important objectives. In a few days – and one cannot escape the facts – an Israeli-Lebanese peace will be signed. This will be their second peace treaty. They will also succeed in sending Arafat and his terrorists to hell as well as in breaking the PLO.”

The “their” and “they” refer to Labor’s domestic political opponents.

Labor organized massive peace protests. They prepared to demand Sharon's resignation over bogus charges related to the Sabra and Shatilla massacres. These things gave the PLO hope. They let Arafat know that if held out, Israeli domestic politics could ride to his rescue.

The Israeli political system, in dealing with a matter that had an obvious proximity to the country’s survival and well-being, put politics first. As an exit question (with apologies to Allah), is it so inconceivable that America’s political class would be above such things in regards to the Iraq war?

12) I have an “exit question” for you: You said Sunday Book Review. But in fact, it’s Monday.

It’s a long weekend. Cut me some slack. Which reminds me – I’ve spent most of the weekend away from my modem and come back to find 600 email messages. If you’ve got a really important one in there, you might want to resend it

Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com