In the wake of the Republican failure to hold on to control of the Congress in the 2006 elections, we are facing some dire decisions. Democrats, at least some of the more

radical ones - or is that the same thing? - are arguing that the election was a rejection of

what we have been doing in the Middle East. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that is not the way either they or al Qaeda is interpreting it. For their part, with the elevation of

troop bashing John Murtha to a leadership position, and the rhetorical 'nuances' of Chairman

twenty years ago. Iran and bin Laden will read that as vindication in their long held assertion that America does not have the will to fight. For them, this is evidence that in time we will adopt Shari`ah law.

The election was not a rejection of middle east policy. It had nothing to do with that. If that were the case, Joe Lieberman would not have won the Senate seat in Connecticut, which he did hands down. In deed, what the election was simply comes down to the phenomenon

now over a century old of the party of a sitting President losing seats in Congress in the off year elections. It was not even up to the average rate of turnover for such elections. Republicans may have been able to shave a few losses off the total had they done things differently, and the Senate takeoever was simply a result of massive vote fraud in five states,

but it nevertheless comes down to that phenomenom alone. Democrats to their own peril will read something else into it.

This differs in degree from the Republican takeover in 1994. That was the result of the same thing, coupled with discontent with Clinton's tax hikes, and the House post office and banking scandals and the resultant decision of an unusual number of members not to seek reelection. They also rewarded themselves by allowing incumbents to pocket unused

campaign coffers for personal enrichment. It is perhaps surprising that the Republicans have held onto the Congress this long. They did not lose seats in 2002 in a singular reversal of that long time phenomenon. Even JFK could not stop minimal losses in 1962 by staging

the Cuban Missile Crisis the week before the elections. But the GOP has been trying to lose its control, acting almost as if they were not sure what to do as the majority party.

What the Democrats are trying to do now, though, with regard to the middle east is particularly dangerous. They are plotting to get out troops out of Iraq by next year. If they can do that, it will be the fall of Saigon all over again. However, it would be Iran and al Qaeda that would be seizing the opportunity here. And they will not stay in Iraq. It would become a staging ground like Taliban Afghanistan was.

It is not certain that they can pull that off. When the supplemental defense appropriation comes up next fall, they may try to cut off funding for the war. In the Senate, that is going to be a close fight. Lieberman will not support that. A number of other Democrats may not, either. Yet, there are a handful of Republicans who cannot be counted on to necessarily

stay the course. In the House, there are over fifty Blue Dog Democrats who may throw a monkey wrench in the left's strategy. At the same time, however, count on al Qaeda and Iran to turn up the heat. Their perception is that as they do that, Democrats will cave.

to act against them by left wing intransigence in this country. But, serving as a Fifth Column

has long been a tradition of the left in the United States. There has emerged a virtual unholy alliance of leftists in this country tied to not only Iran, al Qaeda, and North Korea but also

to Castro and Chavez, who has used his oil money to influence elections in Mexico, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and the U.S. along with his forays in Iran and North Korea. He is trying to build a new Marxist international. His sense may not be completely without base. The alliance of socialists, al qaeda terrorists, narcoterrorists, communists, social democrats, and corporatists and their ilk is very real. Whatever else radical Islam is, it is collectivist, and has

socialism retreated in the end of the Cold War. In recognition of this, Bush has reauthorized U.S. troops training Latin American military forces.

The domestic left is already jockeying for influence. The Iraq Study Group is already forming. What this may get down to is left wing radicals leaning on pragmatic Republicans and capturing the moment. They may be able to shoot down Secretary Rice's vision of a new democratic market oriented mid east to replace the travesty of the one left over from a century of world wars and cold wars.

Another scenario is possible, though only slightly less attractive than the cut and run of Dean and Levin and Kennedy and Kerry. Some weeks ago, Joe Biden was calling for division of Iraq into three sectors - Sunni, Shia, and Kurd - with stipulation that oil revenues be used to

an 'FDR-like jobs program' for Iraq. What they want is socialism. Their social democrat blood is rising and they think they can create such a regime in that country. Their initial opposition to the war flared up only when they sensed Bush's commitment to allow free markets to prevail in Iraq. The extent to which they have has been is one of the hallmarks of the success of the Iraqi liberation. But this is unacceptable to the Democrats.