The Few. The Ruthless. The Nihilistic

I may not think much of Michael O'Hanlon's idea that we should partition Iraq (or many other of his policy ideas for that matter), but I will grant him that he isn't confused about either the popularity of our enemies in Iraq or their nature:

Admittedly, guerrilla movements are often relatively small, but Iraq's insurgency has been particularly so. Its al Qaeda element, responsible for most of the suicide attacks such as those that terrorized Baghdad April 18, has been downright tiny.

As for the character of our enemies, they have been unusually ruthless and nihilistic. This is not meant as a trite, nationalistic [a word or phrase missing here, I think] but a comparative comment. Looking back historically, at least some of our enemies can be respected, albeit begrudgingly.

I'll pass on his attempt to partially rehabilitate our communist enemies in the Vietnam War as less than reprehensible, but his point about our curren enemy is well taken.

I've written again and again that the enemy inside Iraq is fighting out of proportion to its numbers because of ample arms and money. Initially these came from Baathist stockpiles, and now Persians and Sunni Arabs funnel in recruits, weapons, and cash. They might not be able to win but they sure can kill in large numbers.

So I commend Mr. O'Hanlon for his clear-sighted appreciation of what we face in Iraq. Which separates him from the usual war opponents who think our enemies are popular, bound to win, and really not so bad after all.

We can debate how to achieve success in Iraq, but appreciating that we are fighting the bad guys is a major accomplishment. I'll give credit where credit is due.

It would be shameful to let such a small cadre of vicious killers destroy the democracy in Iraq that our efforts are building. We must kill these terrorists wherever we find them. Any we fail to kill will simply show up later to kill more innocents.