In his op-ed, titled U.S. can endure an ‘unfavorable outcome’ in the Iraq war, Logan argues that the consequences of a precipitous American withdrawal from Iraq have been overblown by the Bush Administration. In particular he claims that a withdrawal would not necessarily damage American credibility around the world and have little impact on the prospects for democratic reform in the Middle East. These arguments make little sense and embody several dangerous assumptions.

Not surprisingly, Logan sees Iraq as another Vietnam. In Vietnam, he notes, “tens of thousands of Americans died in the pursuit not of victory but of saving face.” In other words, they died to preserve American credibility despite arguments made by “wiser voices” within the Johnson Administration that the costs of defeat were manageable. Logan implies that credibility is an illegitimate goal in foreign affairs, something that only vain, egotistical and callous leaders pursue. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As military scholars and historians from Lao Tzu to Victor Davis Hanson have observed, wars are fundamentally about national will. Weapons and tactics are obviously important, but in the end they cannot compensate for a loss of national will. Indeed, the ultimate goal of all warfare is to impress upon the enemy the futility of resistance. When one side loses the will to fight, the war is over.

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. was engaged in a global rivalry with the Soviet Union. The Soviets were watching closely to see if we had the stomach to defend our beliefs and our allies, as were other countries around the world. The humiliating pullout of U.S. troops emboldened our enemies everywhere and led in short order to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran four years later. We’re still dealing with the fallout from those events.

Even if the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam was “manageable” for Americans, it was a catastrophe for people in the region. The chaos spawned by America’s retreat led to the establishment of a totalitarian regime in Vietnam, mass executions, re-education camps, the boat people and genocide in Cambodia. Not a word about that from Logan.

No one can say for certain what the effects of a similar American defeat in Iraq would be. But they would most certainly be bad for the U.S. and horrible for people in the Middle East. Veteran New York Times reporter John Burns, recently appeared on the Hugh Hewitt Show and noted that 3,700 people had died during one recent month in Iraq. He then observed that it the U.S. departed, Shiite death squads would probably execute at least that many people in one night. Logan has nothing to say about this, either.

Logan concedes that the U.S. would lose credibility if it left Iraq. But that’s O.K. with him:

This argument is partially true, as it was in Vietnam. Al Qaeda will indeed attempt to link our withdrawal to a larger narrative that includes President Ronald Reagan's retreat from Lebanon after the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut and our departure from Somalia after the "Black Hawk Down" incident. But unless our national leadership allowed our failure in Iraq to call into question other commitments, this damage certainly could be mitigated.

Any administration extricating U.S. troops from Iraq would have to send the message that the U.S. military would now refocus its full attention on al Qaeda. As for other commitments, why would we allow anyone to conclude that our failure in Iraq had any bearing on them? In withdrawing, the U.S. should answer questions of credibility loudly and clearly. Further, demonstrating that we recognize the error of our ways would indicate a seriousness of purpose and a national magnanimity that have been lacking throughout the Bush years.

As for Logan’s argument that leaving Iraq would free us to focus on al Qaeda, this guy might have something to say about that.

Logan’s other argument is that cutting and running from Iraq won’t impact the prospects for democracy in the region because democracy never had a chance in the Middle East:

The other protest from war supporters is that withdrawal would sound a death knell for the prospect of liberal democratic reform in the Middle East -- a reversed version of the domino theory. But that objection implies that liberal democracy could sweep across the Islamic world if U.S. forces are kept in Iraq. In every location where elections have been held in the Muslim world since the Iraq war -- whether Egypt, the Palestinian territories or Bahrain -- something close to the worst possible result has emerged.

If you want to know more about Logan you can read his bio at the Cato Institute’s web site. He looks like he’s about 24 years old. He’s also a member of something called the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, which describes itself as “a group of scholars, policy makers and concerned citizens united by our opposition to an American empire.” Yet the Star-Ledger chose to feature him at the top of its editorial page.

It’s like this everyday at the Star-Ledger, which makes the Minneapolis Star Tribune look like The National Review. This is what New Jersey voters get day in and day out: a toxic stew of Bush hatred, anti-Americanism and defeatism, served up local coverage of petty criminals and lots and lots of classified advertising. The voters need to shake off these chains and tell their Congressmen that they want victory, not defeat, in this war.