If John Kerry wants to win in November, and I am in no way trying to help him, then he needs to meet John Davis. John Davis is an old Navy friend of my father. The last few years, thanks to the miracle of the internet (thanks Al !!), all of my father's old navy buddies have been able to keep in touch, and he can even keep track of goings on with his old squadron. The last few years, my father has traveled back east to spend time with several of his service friends. They share a bond that only servicemen can share.

I've never met John Davis, but I know alot about him. John Davis is a lifelong Democrat. He is Catholic, a union electrician, and a veteran. He is a proud American, served his country, worked all his life and asked for nothing but a fair shake, an honest days pay, for an honest days work. He is like millions of Americans who are in the Democratic party. They belonged to the party because they felt the party represented them, whereas the Republicans represented big business. I guess in the 1950's, there was some truth to that.

John Davis served with black sailors, Jewish sailors, northerners, southerners, and everyone in between. He, like many others, believed that segregation was wrong. He grew up believing that FDR really saved this nation, and that the government did have a role to play.

But John Davis hasn't voted for a Democrat for president for some time. He never took too well to the Republicans. The notion that they are all for big business and cheap labor are ideas that are too ingrained. It doesn't matter that more millionaires give to the Democrats and the the Republicans have many times more small donors. It doesn't matter that Democrats favor illegal immigration that brings down wages for everyone. It doesn't matter that a multi-billionaire, Warren Buffett, was brought on to be Kerry's economic adviser. It doesn't matter that the Democrats favor frivolous lawsuits that drive up the price of doing business and drives small business under. It doesn't matter that the Democrats favor stifling business and personal tax rates. It doesn't matter because the sun rises in the east, the sky is blue, the Democrats are for the working guy, and the Republicans are for big business.

John Davis hasn't voted Democratic in quite some time. There are a variety of reasons for this. The Democratic party has been taken over by the abortionists, the gay rights activists, and the environmentalists. Most of all, they were taken over by a group Jean Kirkpatrick called the "blame America first" crowd. It didn't take much imagination to understand what she was talking about. Jimmy Carter's Attorney General Ramsey Clark is a prime example. Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis hardly put fear into the heart of the Kremlin. So, the on the most important issue facing our nation, security, the Democrats came up woefully inadequate.

Then the end of the Cold War came, and it ushered in a whole new wave of Democratic party leftward sliding. Whether it was the personal conduct of President Clinton, gays in the military, abortion on demand, or a whole host of other issues, the Democratic party stood squarely against mainstream American values. These values are precisely what John Davis learn in religious school, and precisely the values he passed to his children. And today, not much has changed. The Democratic party seems torn about whether to endorse same-sex marriage.

Most of what I know about John Davis comes from conversations with my father. Though I haven't spoken to John, I can fairly confidently assume that he understands we are at war. He understands the threat the terrorists pose to America, and he knows it will take sacrifice. He thinks the President has led the nation well, but he is beginning have some concerns. WMD's are not a big an issue to him. Saddam probably had the things, and if he didn't, he would have gotten them. But, right now, Iraq isn't stabilized, and we have suffered or worst month of casualties in April. He will accept mistakes being made, but we better admit them, and fix them. Right now, it seems we are doing neither.

The economic recovery is in full swing, but there is still a great deal of angst. Deficits are too high, medical costs are squeezing retirements, and speaking of retirements, the future is uncertain. While jobs are being created, there is the belief that we are losing our competitive edge. It doesn't appear that the next generation is going to do as well as the current one. This is a new condition.

Senator Kerry, don't bother trying to convince me or my father to vote for you. We won't. Neither of us are thrilled about President Bush's economics, for instance the Medicare drug bill, but we are certain he will fight the war on terror. He might make mistakes, but as long as he is in the White House, terrorists will be on the run, we will be fighting them on their turf, not ours, and we won't wait around for our supposed allies to jump on board. We are a part of, what Hillary would call, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

John Davis in not a member of the VRWC. He is not thrilled to be voting Republican, but as long as the Democrats are more concerned about aborting babies, saving trees, Bill and Steve getting married, and global warming, you will not win because the John Davis' will not vote for you. As long as the Democrats are more concerned with fighting for illegal aliens' rights, John Davis will not vote for you. As long as Democrats are not serious about fighting the war on terror, John Davis will not vote for you.

Senator Kerry, you don't have to attract too many voters. But, the voter you have to attract, as distrustful of the Republicans as he might be, is even more disgusted with the Democrats. They've been called Reagan Democrats, but now, most of them go by the moniker of Republican. You have to prove to the John Davis' that you share his values and you are serious about defeating terrorism. Currently you have done neither. You have to prove to the John Davis' that the Democratic Party is once again the party Zel Miller wrote no longer exists.

Senator, I'd like to say good luck, but I can't. I am too afraid of what a Kerry administration would bring. The election isn't going to be decided by some focus group, soccer moms, NASCAR dads, or the litany of other "voting blocks". No, the election will be decided by John Davis. He doesn't want to hear details of your plans, he has heard them all before. He wants a president that shares his values. He wants a president that takes national security seriously. He doesn't care what you did 35 years ago. He wants to vote for a Democrat for president.

John Kerry, meet John Davis.

The military has a saying, "When in charge, take charge". Apparently that never sunk in to Brigadier General Janis Karpinski. She allowed her subordinates to turn the Iraqi prisoners of war into a macabre display of sexuo-violence. This is contrary to everything we stand for and everything we are fighting for. We don't act that way, regardless of what the enemy does.

Now, Gen. Karpinski is running around with her lawyer getting as much face time as they can, to plead her case to the public. Sadly, it just might work. She sadly forgot the rule that Harry Truman made so famous, "the buck stops here." However this situation reveals a much larger issue that needs to be addressed, that is women in the service.

The military is not a place for social engineering. It has but one purpose, to protect and defend America against all enemies. Period. To do this, sometimes they have to do things that are completely anathmetic to a free and democratic society. They have to be willing to kill people, and do so in the most violent of manners possible. They have to be willing to follow orders to go into harm's way, putting themselves at great risk of injury and death. They have to suffer through conditions that would cause even the most active outdoorsmen to go home. And they do this without having a voice or a vote.

Because of the unique nature of the armed forces, we have unusually strict requirements for entry. A great many people are denied the chance to serve due to any number of physical ailments, disabilities, or limitations. If a company tried anything similar, they would be subject to numerous civil rights lawsuits.

There has been a push the last several years to open up the military, and the service options within it, to more and more people. No greater beneficiaries are there to this new policy than women. But, the question remains, does this make our military better? The answer is a resounding no. According to many reports, General Karpinski hadn't any control over her prisoner camp. I actually don't find this surprising.

Today, many women are in positions of management, with men working for them. This still causes some men a great deal of angst, but in the civilian world, it isn't important. In the military world, however, it is a large, dangerous, and lethal problem. It is not only unreasonable, but unconscionable. But the military has been pursuing this social engineering agenda for some time, driven by feminist politicians and those too afraid to stand up and speak.

First, it is important to note that women can serve in a variety of capacities. Many women have contributed to the armed forces, and still do today. But, let's examine a few cases to explain the impact the equalization of women in the armed forces has had.

The story of Lt. Kara Hultgren, the Navy pilot killed trying to land on an aircraft carrier, is a classic case. She was unfit for flying, but the Navy, more concerned about having a female fighter pilot, continued to overlook her inability to safely fly the airplane.

There has also been a push to have women in more direct combat roles, using the examples of women like Capt. Bray in Panama and Jessica Lynch in Iraq. Each time, the stories are used to justify the combat readiness of women. Each time, the stories unravel as details come out. Capt. Bray was sent to secure a dog kennel. Pvt. Lynch was injured in her truck and had no gunshot or knife wounds. (Now, Pvt. Lynch deserves credit for sure, but she is not the shining example of the women warrior.)

What is almost always overlooked, and this is essential in the Gen. Karpinski case, is the ability of women to lead men in combat. And everything, from common sense to psychology tells us that women commanding men in combat is a recipe for disaster. I have no knowledge of Gen. Karpinski other than recent news coverage has reported. But her inability to run a POW camp is indicative of a larger problem for the military.

Worse, she is not accepting responsibility for her actions, or lack thereof. In searching for the many reasons for the abuses at the camp, she is overlooking the biggest problem. I wonder how many times she was promoted because it looked good to have a female flag officer. I wonder how many times her personnel file was cleaned up, or her fitness reports rewritten because they were too "honest". We will never know the answers to these questions, and we will never ask the main question that needs to be asked. Can women lead combat units? General Karpinski is a good example. The answer is no.

The commanding officer of an episode like this would be subject to court martial, or at least, summary dismissal. She must held to account for the conduct of those in her command. She was in charge, but refused to take charge. If I was a betting person, and I'm not, but if I was, I'd put the rent money on her getting off clean.

However the recent events in Fallujah turn out, a few things appear obvious. One, we threatened and threatened the "insurgents" and we never went in. Yes, we bombed them and hit them with the AC130's, but the Marines didn't go into town and disarm them. We said we were going to, and we didn't. Two, we decided to turn it over to the Iraqis, led by a former Republican Guard general, and will even hire back some of the people just recently shooting at US troops. Three, It now appears that the Marines are falling back.

So what is Mogallujah? It is Iraq's Mogadishu. We suffered casualties in Mogadishu in 1993, and cut and run. We didn't "cut and run" from Fallujah, but as casualties mounted, our will declined. President Bush needs to understand something. The American public knows we are at war, even John Kerry (begrudgingly) admits this. We know there will be casualties. We are willing to accept them because we understand that the alternative is far worse.

Even at the height of the Vietnam War, public support remained strong. Only when the traitorous press purposely misreported Tet, and later after the Ap Bia (hamburger hill) incident and the running of the faces in Life magazine did public opinion turn. But the real question is why did it turn? It turned because it looked like we were not going to try to win the war. Notice I didn't say "weren't going to win" because had we decided to pursue victory, we would have. The moment we gave up a position we fought so bitterly for, and gave it up without a fight, was all the public needed to know. They saw we lost the will to win.

Fallujah isn't another Hamburger Hill, Iraq is nowhere near another Vietnam, but April was a rough month in Iraq. We had the highest number of combat deaths, the situation appears to be coming apart, and yet, after the recent press conference, the President's poll numbers went up. The president showed resolve and commitment to winning. The American public showed it's support. Now, Ted Koppel pulls his Nightline stunt, we pull back from Fallujah, and even John Kerry has piped in, saying Iraq isn't stable. (Of course Iraq would have been stable with a Gore or Kerry presidency. Saddam would have still been in power.)

If we don't pursue the terrorists in Fallujah, and we appear to be backing down from a fight, then the president will lose the support of the American people, and simply embolden his critics and the jihadists. Not going into Fallujah was a huge mistake. It was bigger than even disbanding the Iraqi army, which, all told, wasn't a huge mistake. If a bad month and stronger criticism has weakened our resolve, then the president will lose the one issue he has over Kerry. It is the one issue that voters will overwhelmingly side with him on, and that is his unrelenting pursuit of terrorists.

Voters will overlook mistakes made in the Iraqi war. They know it's going to happen and they'll allow for mistakes as long as a) we learn from them, and b) keep up the fight. We didn't keep up the fight in Fallujah. If we needed an Iraqi face on it, fine. But not at the expense of our commitment to winning. Though not Ap Bia, Fallujah could very well be the Mogadishu of the War on Terror.

UPDATE: May 2, 2004 11:30 AM
instapundit links to Belmont Club's take on Fallujah. I disagree. In the Arab world, where appearances are everything, and force is all that's respected, we backed down. We are putting a tremendous amont of faith in the Iraqi army, the same one that Paul Bremer said was incapable of providing security. It's not that the plan was bad, but the Marines made an ultimatum and they failed to come through. No matter how hard the Marines try to put a good face on it, the press will report the "retreating" or "withdrawing" Marines.

There is too much optimism about the make-up of the "insurgents" in Fallujah. It is hoped that cutting off the head will cause the uprising to falter. The fighters in Fallujah are Baathist remnants, foreign terrorists, and fedayeen dead-enders. They have nowhere to go.