I never thought I wold be saying these words, but recent developments seem to make them inevitable: We are not going to win in Iraq. There seems to be a sense coming from the White House that we are doomed to failure in Iraq, and if the White House believes it they will make it so.

It all started with the "resignation" of Donald Rumsfeld after the midterms. Many a conservative was either flummoxed by the decision, angered by it, or both. I was in the category of "both". I could not understand the reasoning in waiting until after the election to dump the biggest Iraq war lightening rod out there. The Democrats and the media focused on the war, the "failures" of Rumsfeld and used that twin tack to put the White House on the defensive. If the President knew, and he did know, that Rummy was going to be gone before the midterms why wait until after to announce it? It would have more politically astute to dump Rummy early and save the majority, than to dump him after an a$$ whipping and look weak in doing so.

I also failed to see why Rumsfeld would be thrown under the bus in such an inglorious manner. This was the one man that never wavered in his committment to seeing the mission through, and willingly took the arrows for all of the Bush administration on the issue of Iraq. He never ducked a tough question, he never passed the buck, and he never threw his subordinates to the wolves. He showed true leadership and strong character throughout his tenure as SecDef. Whether we agreed with his war planning or not, we could always say that he was pursuing victory with integrity.

Now we have the nomination of Robert Gates, former Director of the CIA and late of the Iraq Study Group. The nomination of someone from this group, headed by James Baker, to take over the Defense Department gave me a bad feeling from the beginning. From all accounts the ISG is going to release a report that urges the U.S. to involve Iran and Syria in the effort to stabilize Iraq. These are the two main fomentors of sectarian violence in Iraq, and we are to beg their help in ending the very troubles they are causing? What madness is this? And from Mr. Gates' deep involvement in the ISG, there can be no doubt that he concurs with the findings of the group that have been leaked to the press.

And today's Senate confirmation hearings sealed the deal for me. When aked if we were winning the war in Iraq, Mr. Gates answered "No". Later, in response to a question from Senator Carl Levin Mr. Gates stated that he did not know if going into Iraq was the right thing to do. He wants to see what the results of the war are before he makes that determination. Why? What is so hard about saying that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do? Why can't he see that the liberation of the Iraqi people from the Butcher of Baghdad, their freedom from his tyranny, rape, and muder is a good thing on its own merits?

What is the new direction of the Pentagon going to be on Iraq, when the new SecDef cannot find it in him to say that we were right to take Saddam out? I know that things have not been all peaches and cream in Iraq, and I know that all of the decisions made have not been good ones. But the bad decisons that were made are not a reason to doubt the entire war effort. Mistakes are made in wars, that is a given. What we must do is correct them as best we can and continue the fight.

I fear that a Pentagon led by a charter member of the Iraq Surrender Group is going to vigorously pursue a way to get out of Iraq. There seems to be a serious move on the part of the White House to find an acceptable way to bug out of Iraq without winning the war that we are waging there. There seems to be a real effort to find a way to basically surrender to our enemies and still be able to win the P.R. battle at home. Otherwise, why would you nominate someone that help draft a report that advocates a surrender to head the Pentagon?

I have had my moments of disappointment wih George W. Bush during his tenure, mainly on the issue of the borders, but this dwarfs those disappointments. The man that led us into war, pledged to see it through to the end, and committed our troops to the fight seems to be willing to abandon the very fight he said he wanted to win. I hope that my analysis is wrong, but somehow I don't think it will be.

When you nominate a surrender advocate to head the Defense Department, surrender seems to be on your mind. Hopefully Robert Gates will committ himself to winning the war, but for some reason I doubt it. George W. Bush seems to be on a collision course with a total surrender in Iraq. Maybe all those people saying that Iraq was a new Vietnam were right...it seems that we're heading down that same familiar path. Politics has become more important than victory in some circles.

And now the Democrats will seemingly get what they have wanted from the beginning.

Surrender.