During the 2000 campaign, when then-Governor George W. Bush discussed the faltering economy, he was (absurdly) accused by Democrats of “talking down” the economy. In other words, according to Democrats, George W. Bush was both an imbecile incapable of communicating in the English language and also a brilliant orator and communicator capable of changing the economic behavior of people, markets, and nations with his words alone. Of course, it would have been possible for Bush to “talk down” the economy were he inclined to do so: a having a Presidential candidate tied in the polls who, say, wanted to nationalize all banks or double income taxes would, without question, send markets swiftly downwards. Of course, this wouldn’t have so much to do with the words of the candidates themselves as it would the anticipated effects of that candidate’s policies were they to win the election.

With that being said, I suggest this to you: by his words and, more importantly, the popular perception of what his actions as President would be, John Kerry is “talking down” the war and, in so doing, he is ensuring additional American deaths in Iraq and giving courage to terrorists abroad. For all of John Kerry’s strenuous efforts to appear “tough enough” to be President, the wider world knows the real truth. Once you get beyond all of the lies and dissembling, John Kerry’s real policies with regard to the war on terror are painfully obvious.

First, all talk of toughness aside; John Kerry will cut and run in Iraq. He won’t call it that, of course, but that’s exactly what he’ll do. He’ll use bribery, flattery, and whatever else he can to assemble a UN force of third-rate third-world troops and pull US troops out of Iraq as soon as possible. If the Iraqi “resistance” and its allies are smart, they’d immediately call a halt to any attacks the moment they hear that John Kerry’s been elected. John Kerry, President wouldn’t be able to simply pull out of the country overnight, such a move would be politically suicidal, but he’ll be able to use whatever excuses he can to get out as fast as possible.

All rhetoric aside, our enemies are rational: that’s what makes them so dangerous. They know that John Kerry, while unable to exit Iraq immediately, won’t be sticking around there for long and that he probably wouldn’t send troops back into the country under any circumstances once they’re gone. They also know that if George W. Bush were to get another four years in the White House, they’ll all end up dead sooner or later. Given this, this would certainly prefer a President Kerry to a President Bush.

Think about it for a second. Imagine the following scenario: your nation is occupied by a relatively mild foreign power and you’re asked to join up with a rag-tag force of guerrillas, and told that, “the enemy will be here for at least five more years, and his forces kill one hundred of us for every one of theirs we kill.” How many would sign up to fight on those terms? Now, imagine this: you’re told that, “if we can just hold out against this enemy for a few months, their leader will be replaced and they will leave and then we will run the country.” How many more would join up for that?

So long as there’s hope that the Democrats will win the election, our enemies will take courage from this possibility. Whatever official position the Democratic Party adopts, whether Kerry runs as an anti-war candidate on a pro-war platform or a pro-war candidate on an anti-war platform, everyone knows the real position of both Senator Kerry and his party: they’re not for Iraq, they never were, and they will exit as soon as they can and on whatever terms they can.

I compare the situation to that of late 1864, during the Civil War. The South knew it was beaten: its forces were starving and its territory was being systematically occupied. Yet the South fought on. One of the main things which preserved Southern morale in those dark days was the widespread belief that Abraham Lincoln would be defeated for re-election and that George McClellan, whose party’s pro-Southern sympathies were widely known, would be the next President. Though, of course, he didn’t come right out and say he was for Southern victory: the Democrats of 1864 wanted to have a cease fire and then negotiate the restoration of the Union. However, since the only terms the South was willing to accept for negations was a promise of Southern Independence, the likely result of negotiations was obvious to all. McClellan eventually denounced this platform (he was for it before he was against it), but everyone knew the objective truth: President McClellan would be less capable of waging the war to a successful conclusion than President Lincoln.

Rationally therefore, the Confederates believed that they would, at an absolute minimum, get much better terms under McClellan than they could ever hope to get from Lincoln. This it may be fairly said that the initial success of the Democratic campaign in 1864 resulted in more deaths (on both sides) than might have occurred if it was clear from early on that Lincoln would be overwhelmingly re-elected.

Who are the terrorists for in this election? To put it simply: Anybody But Bush. George W. Bush is the only man with a realistic chance of being elected President who will seriously confront and, yes, kill the terrorists. And I know that the Democrats are trying to push the line that the terrorists want Bush because he’s created “hatred” in the Islamic world and such, but that’s simply nonsense. People don’t flock to join the guys getting killed in the hundreds by the First Marine Division (and prior to that by the thousands by the First Armored Division), nor is it anyone’s life ambition to spend one’s days hiding out in a cave. Before George W. Bush was President al-Qaeda had free reign in Afghanistan, plenty of funding and support from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and was welcome in various places across the Moslem world. Three years of war has destroyed the centralized structure of al-Qaeda, largely as a result of the killing and capture of virtually every operational terrorist of serious importance (Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are important, but not really involved in the planning or execution of day-to-day operations).

To the extent that al-Qaeda (or, rather the various fragments of it) continues to gain any new support, it’s because that support is founded in the belief that George Bush will be defeated in November and the terrorist group will be able to achieve its aims. If George W. Bush is re-elected, al-Qaeda will have difficulty finding new support for the obvious reason that if George Bush is re-elected they will spend the next four years dodging missiles and Special Forces raids and, in all probability, will end up dead sometime before January 20th, 2009. People in the Moslem world are, to put it simply, hedging their bets.

Remember Bin Laden’s claim that people would back al-Qaeda in its war against the West because, when people see a weak horse and a strong horse, they prefer the strong one? Well, under George Bush, America is looking like a strong horse: one that will win if it stays under the present course. Were John Kerry to be elected, a signal of American weakness would be sent to the world. The Election of John Kerry would proclaim, as big and as loud as a comic book bubble, that America has no stomach for the fight, that it can’t confront terror: that it’s ready for the glue factory.