Aiding the Enemy?

Ned Lamont's Connecticut win has sparked a fast-moving political narrative, with a new chapter erupting every day or two. It has brought us to a valuable debate over how war opponents are characterized.

First, a recap of the drama so far.

Chapter One: Mr. Lamont beats Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary, completing two parallel plot lines - the challenger's remarkable ascendancy and the rare banishment of a seasoned incumbent.

Chapter Two: We learn of a terrorist plot that sparks speculation that some Lamont voters might be having second thoughts in view of the reminder that we are, in fact, at war.

Chapter Three: Speaking for all who have questioned the seriousness of the cut-and-run crowd, Vice President Cheney suggests in a conference call with reporters that voters supporting candidates like Mr. Lamont were giving "the al-Qaeda types" exactly what they wanted.

Chapter Four: Everybody freaks out.

So, here we are. It's time to examine whether it is fair or unfair to pin the badge of national security lethargy on the anti-war candidates who advocate leaving Iraq before the mission is complete.

Before that evaluation begins, we must address the unfortunate but typical behavior of some driven to irrationality by the vice president's assertion. Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post had a full-blown case of the vapors Monday by asserting that Mr. Cheney crossed a line "by insinuating that the sizable majority of American voters who oppose the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy."

This kind of fatuousness gets us nowhere. Not everyone who is thumbs-down on the war advocates bugging out today or by any certain date. Plenty of relatively thoughtful people do not support the war but realize the danger of abandoning Iraq when its new government is in its infancy.

Some do not grasp this, and many of them seek or hold high office. From candidates like Ned Lamont to members of Congress like Rep. John Murtha and Sen. Russell Feingold, there is a portion of the Democratic Party that does not stop at mere war opposition.

These members seek to dismantle the war while it is in progress. They are led by a party chairman, Howard Dean, who has fashioned perhaps the most contradictory call to action in recent memory: "Bring the troops home to the heroes' welcome they deserve."

In what dictionary is heroism defined by abandoning a cause rather than prevailing? Those fighting the war will allow Mr. Dean his war opposition but will thank him to keep his twisted definition of heroism to himself.

In the meantime, we at home are left with the question that will last until Election Day. Is it somehow beyond the pale to suggest that al-Qaeda smiles on candidates who would yank the troops before their job is complete?

The answer sadly requires some illumination. Namely, no one is suggesting that Mr. Lamont, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Feingold or their ilk actually admire al-Qaeda, support terrorist goals or carry a photo of Osama bin Laden in their wallets. The issue, if we can be allowed to get to it without all the conniption fits, is: What reaction would the enemy have if we left Iraq?

By any objective analysis, it would be thrilled. No more U.S. troops to slow the growth of the insurgency. No more Americans to prop up the newborn Iraqi government. No more pesky soldiers in the way to prevent the obliteration of that government in favor of the medieval theocracy it favors.

That is precisely what will happen if we bail out of Iraq before winning. Thus, anyone advocating such a reckless, early exit will generate warm feelings among the most rabid war bashers in America and our terrorist enemies as well.