XDA

I've always liked the new Virginia Senator, James Webb, ever since I read Fields of Fire in 1979. He's a usually good man and a talented writer; he served his country very admirably in Viet Nam and later in politics as Reagan's Secretary of the Navy (who quit because they wouldn't build enough ships). He was a good Republican. I'm almost finished his Scots-Irish book Born Fighting in which I learned that his people come from the area around Gates City, VA, where I lived for several months shortly after my birth oh so many years ago. I know this guy, but I can't figure out what's energizing his thinking. He's gone all populist on us. His short "rebuttal" to the recent, decent State of the Union address, which has been highly praised by such Democrat stalwarts as E.J. Dionne and Jonathan Alter, however, gave us some insight into the limits of his recent political philosophy.

First, he decried that CEOs of major corporations earn a lot more than the average worker at those corporations. No kidding, and what's wrong with that? Quarterbacks with cannon arms earn a lot more than the guy who moves half of the first down chain. Why is that? Is it because millions have the skills and talent to move the chains but only a few have the ability to be a successful NFL quarterback? Just so, millions can do all sorts of things for the corporation but only a few have the leadership skills and other talents it takes to run a large business organization successfully. They, like quality quarterbacks, can hold out for a lot of money and they do. Not only is this OK, this is the way it should be--talent and hard work should be rewarded, there never should be any governmental impediment to getting paid well if you are talented and work hard. It is scary to me that Webb thinks the government should do something about it. It is a truism that conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, while liberals believe in equality of outcome. Webb has fallen for the latter in a big way. It is socialist thinking and to my mind, at least, anathema to the American way of life.

The other revealing part was his praise of the end of the Korean War by President Eisenhower. There was no end to the Korean War, just a cease fire very like the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War. We had saved South Korea from being placed under Communist tyranny but we had been unable to hold on to North Korea when Chinese Communist forces poured in to keep at least the North unfree (and poorly led--perhaps a million North Koreans have died under the Great and Dear Leaders' less than kind hand, and untold suffering has held sway). Oh yeah, and we've kept thousands of troops in South Korea for the last 54 years. Forgive me if I think that such an end to the Gulf War would not be so great. But of course we've seen the Democrats since the Korean War willing to throw our former allies to the Communist wolves, just as they did after we bugged out redeployed out of Viet Nam. So Webb is for carrying on another Democrat tradition. It's just one which I find particularly shameful. I hope we on the right don't let them do it again in Iraq.

Jonah Goldberg, I'm happy to say, thinks just the same way.

UPDATE: Senator Webb (D-VA) also said: The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. (Emphasis added).

I'm doubting that last part a lot. Is there a poll of servicemen he's referring to here? The war Webb is referring to is not the Global War against Jihadists but the ending of the Gulf War, the war in Iraq (although it doesn't really make a difference--I'm sure Webb is just as critical of how the President is fighting the broader war). I'm reasonably sure that history will see the fighting in Iraq as just a front in the world war, just as Mesopotamia was just another of many fronts during WWI. Webb won't recognize this, either from ignorance (tough to believe) or from his famous Scots-Irish stubbornness and loyalty to his new party. In the polls, some of the dissatisfied are dissatisfied because we're not fighting hard enough, because we're fighting with our arms tied behind our backs. That's not lack of support for a new focus and strategy with more troops in Baghdad and al Anbar, it's just the opposite.

UPDATE II: Lefty commenter peter b points me to the Military Times Poll at MilitaryCity.com. (Thank you very much). And it's just as I suspected. For example, 50% said we're really likely or somewhat likely to succeed to 41% who think it's somewhat or very unlikely. 35% approve of the President's handling to 42% who disapprove but 22% had no opinion or refused to answer. 42% is not a majority, unless my math skills are really gone. And there is no follow up to see if the disapprovers think we should run away or put in more troops. We have to guess about that, but here's a clue: 26% think we should have less troops in Iraq, 13% think the current number is fine and 38% think we need more (with a large 23% no opinion). So the majority (an actual majority with more than 50%--not a Jim Webb majority with less than 50%) think the number of troops is fine or too low. Not exactly majority support for the cut and run redeploy crowd.