What do you call it?

What do you call it when a powerful military leaves before its goals have been accomplished because of minor attacks by insurgents? The Republicans are calling it "cut and run". The Democrats are calling it a "redeployment" (redeploying all the way to the far side of China). I call it defeat.

According to a USA Today poll, this is the will of the people.

In the poll, 57% say Congress should pass a resolution that outlines a plan for withdrawing U.S. troops; 39% say that decision should be left to the president and his advisers.

Even allowing for the fact that USA Today polls usually skew anti-Bush, that's a lot of Americans who want us to do what Michael Moore suggested in 2004 - go home and live with our shame. As I complained a couple of days ago, this isn't surprising given the news coverage of Iraq but it is still distressing.

The long-term repercussions of this are stunning. Our pull-outs in Viet Nam, Lebanon, and Somalia convinced our enemies that we are a hollow-people who can be defeated by a weaker but determined force. This will prove them right and make them redouble their efforts elsewhere.

There are implications for the rest of the world, also. Much of the world disarmed over the last several decades because they could depend on American military intervention. Europe, especially, has reduced its military strength to the point where they would be unable to send significant help to Iraq, even if they agreed to. This has contributed to world peace. What will become of this if the world decides that the US military is not to be relied on?

Responsible members of Congress must realize this, even the Democrats. That means that they are letting their hatred of Bush overcome their responsibility to defend the United States.