In my mode this evening, let's look at the all too likely scenario that will play out: http://www.dailymail.com/story/Opin...on-Surber-Byrd-and-Clinton-want-to-surrender/ Commentary Thursday July 12, 2007 Don Surber: Byrd and Clinton want to surrender I will not mince words. The call to bring our troops home from Iraq is nothing short of a surrender that will move the theater of war from Baghdad to the streets of the United States. Unlike Vietnam, the enemy will follow our soldiers home. On Sunday, the New York Times called for a surrender in Iraq. In so doing, the newspaper abandoned any pretense of liberalism, of decency and of compassion for one's fellow man. Consider this passage in its lengthy editorial: "There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs." Got that? The editors of the New York Times think it is OK to slaughter anyone in Iraq who worked with Americans and gives the approval to "even genocide" in its call for the immediate withdrawal of American forces as soon as the Pentagon can distribute the white flags to its soldiers. I have never heard of a legitimate American newspaper advising a course of action it believes will leads to genocide. To those of us who point out the surrender of Vietnam led to the killing fields of Cambodia and the slaughter of 2 million people, the editors at the Times are saying, well, genocide happens. The Times is still arguing over whether we should go. Give me a break. That debate ended. We went. Americans must deal with the reality that if we leave, massacres will happen. Daft newspapers do not bother me. The real power is still in Washington. This week, President-in-waiting Hillary Clinton and Robert C. Byrd, 89, president pro tempore of the Senate (and third in line for the presidency) outlined their plans to surrender in Iraq. In a column in Newsday, Byrd and Clinton wrote that they want to renege on congressional authorization of the war. This is unprecedented and unconstitutional. Even worse, it is suicidal. "The American people have waited long enough for progress in Iraq," Byrd and Clinton wrote. "They have waited long enough for the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future." Really? The war lasted three weeks. The occupation is in its fourth year. So what? The North occupied the South for 12 years, and had it hung on a few more years, civil rights would have arrived for black Americans about 80 years sooner. American troops are still in Germany. It took 10 years just to calm West Germany down and begin its "economic miracle," i.e. Americans bought what West Germany produced, no matter how awful it may have been. American troops are still in South Korea. It took a good 20 years to establish a democracy there. My brother-in-law still recalls the deprivations he faced when he served in Korea. That was in the 1970s. American troops are still in Kosovo, helping prevent the very genocide that the editors of the New York Times suggest is OK in Iraq. American troops are still in Afghanistan. I won't go into how long we occupied Italy and Japan. My point is made. No thinking person likes war. But remember, President Bush did not start this war. It began with the Munich Olympics in 1972. Among the 11 Israeli athletes slaughtered by Arab terrorists was a young man born in Cleveland. Sept. 11, 2001, was simply the date the United States officially recognized the terror we face. Bringing our troops home will not end the war. The jihadists will follow our soldiers home. Byrd prides himself on his knowledge of Roman history. I suggest he re-read the parts about the fall of Rome.