3 reasons why we must stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until these wars are WON.

1) The sacrifices made by Our Boys must not have been in vain.

2) The bravery of the vast majority of Iraqis and Afghans who seek nothing less than peace and freedom for their children and grandchildren, if not for themselves.

3) The moslem heretics who worship death must not be allowed to take any more innocents with them.

In case you are not dazzled by this brilliance of mine, check out these two columns from OpinionJournal:

On the Editorial Page BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
We're winning in Iraq. Let's not lose at home.

OpinionJournal Federation BY HARRY V. JAFFA
From the Claremont Institute: In Iraq as in America, there's more to democracy than majority rule.

Mr. Jaffa is still getting it done after all these years. Although his Lincoln fetish leaves me a bit queasy. Ol' Abe is not exactly the poster boy for the rule of law. But heck, we're talking about the real world here, aren't we? Praxis über alles, right? Politcal theory is nice, but some times you just gotta get 'er done!

According to Abraham Lincoln, public opinion always has a central idea from which all its minor thoughts radiate. The central idea of the American Founding--and indeed of constitutional government and the rule of law--was the equality of mankind. This thought is central to all of Lincoln's speeches and writings, from 1854 until his election as president in 1860. It is immortalized in the Gettysburg Address.

The equality of mankind is best understood in light of a two-fold inequality. The first is the inequality of mankind and of the other, nonhuman, classes of living beings that comprise the order of nature. Dogs and horses, for example, are naturally subservient to man. But no human being is naturally subservient to another human being. The second is the inequality of man and God. As God's creatures, we owe unconditional obedience to His will. By that very fact however we do not owe such obedience to anyone else.

Legitimate political authority--the right of one human being to require obedience of another human being--arises only from consent. The fundamental act of consent is, as the 1780 Massachusetts Bill of Rights states, "a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good." The "certain laws for the common good" have no other purpose but to preserve and protect the rights that each citizen possesses prior to government, rights with which he or she has been "endowed by their Creator." The rights that governments exist to secure are not the gift of government. They originate in God.

The great difficulty in forming legitimate governments is in persuading those forming the governments that those who are to be their fellow citizens are equal to them in the rights, which their common government is to protect. Catholics and Protestants in 16th-century Europe looked upon each other as less than human, (A better formulation might be "all too human". - F.G.) and slaughtered each other without pity and without compunction. (That sounds like prod propaganda to me. See The Duke of Alba. - F.G.) It was impossible for there to be a common citizenship of those who did not look upon each other as possessing the same right of conscience. How one ought to worship God cannot be settled by majority rule. A majority of one faith cannot ask a minority of another faith to submit their differences to a vote.

I wonder what Mr. Jaffa thinks about abortion and taxpayer funded contraception...