“National defense is one of the cardinal duties of a statesman.” –John Adams

In our democratic republic, we charge our elected representatives with the conduct of vigorous debate about issues both foreign and domestic. In doing so, we expect them to uphold their oaths to protect and defend our Constitution.

However, politicians often posture and pretend in order to line up constituencies that perpetuate their tenure in office, regardless of constitutional constraints.

Such political posturing is a disingenuous breach of trust at best. When this deceit extends to matters of national security, especially when we are at war and continue to face formidable threats from Jihadi terrorists, that constitutes treason.

The Democrat Party was, in a bygone era, populated by statesmen. Until JFK (that’s J.F. Kennedy not J.F. Kerry), Democrat leaders, understood the projection of force to protect America’s security and vital interests abroad.

Now, this once-proud political party is infested with hypocritical, nescient, duplicitous, reprehensible, half-witted, asinine, obsequious, meretricious, pusillanimous, indolent, imbecilic, pompous, retromingent, ignominious, ungrateful, sycophantic prevaricators (did I leave anything out?), who flippantly exploit Operation Iraqi Freedom as political fodder for their next campaign.

Truth be told, most Democrats know that the fate of the entire Middle East (and, by extension, much of the free world) depends on the establishment of a stable government in Iraq. They know that Fourth Generation Warfare in the Second Nuclear Age leaves us no choice but to confront Jihadistan on the Iraqi front. After all, if not Iraq now, then where and when?

They also know that much of what is reported in the American media reflects not only the propaganda machines of the Left, but also that of our Jihadi adversaries. This is because these cutthroats understand that our mainstream media is friendly terrain for undermining American will.

Unfortunately, petty party politics prevail, with little regard for the inconvenient truth that Leftist defeatism merely emboldens our enemy and further endangers our troops in Iraq.

Now, however, there is a confluence of analysis from the warfront in Iraq that OIF has turned a corner. Clearly, such news will have significant consequences for those Leftists who have staked their political fortunes on America’s failure, surrender and retreat from Iraq.

In the New York Times this week, two noted and vocal critics of OIF, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, analysts with the Left-leaning Brookings Institution, published an op-ed entitled “A War We Just Might Win.”

Having just returned from a fact-finding tour of Iraq, their op-ed notes, “After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. Today, morale is high. The soldiers and Marines … feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.”

On the politics of Iraq, O'Hanlon and Pollack write, “Viewed from Iraq … the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place.”

Their analysis continues: “Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily ‘victory’ but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.”

Also this week, retired Army General Jack Keane testified before the House Armed Services Committee, telling them in no uncertain words, “Your actions here in the Congress appear to be in direct conflict with the realities on the ground where the trends are up and progress is being made. We are on the offensive and we have the momentum.”

That news was so distressing to Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) that she walked out of the committee hearings during General Keane’s testimony, lamenting later that there was “only so much [she could tolerate] after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.” She continued, “Those kinds of [encouraging] comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, ‘Here’s the reality of the problem’.”

Of course, reality in the alternate universe of the Left dictates that down is up, in is out, left is right, black is white, falsehood is truth, pride is humility, red is blue and, particularly in the case of Iraq, good news is bad.

Adding insult to injury, more bad news for Demos: Marine General Jim Jones conducted a congressionally mandated study of Iraq’s security forces and returned with a favorable report.

This report, combined with the continuing decline of American and Iraqi casualties, has Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid very concerned that their “defeat and retreat” political folly may backfire.

Asked about the political implications should commanding Gen. David Petraeus report significant progress during his scheduled congressional testimony in September, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC) replied, “Well, that would be a real big problem for us, no question about that.”

Good news out of Iraq is “a real big problem”? Guess that depends upon whose side you’re on.