Last September I wrote in my blog (www.kennethgdavenport.blogspot.com) about the danger that fear poses in the fight against Islamic terrorism. In that case it was about the collective fear of a Muslim backlash against any effort the West might make to stand up for its ideals -- be it the freedom to publish cartoons of Mohammad, or to speak honestly and openly about the depravity of central aspects of the Islamic faith. In the face of what is clearly an organized effort at intimidation by Islamic groups, the West has chosen appeasement based principally on fear. It's an exceedingly dangerous trend.

Today I'm writing again about fear -- but this time of a different sort. This time its a fear born of political expediency and polling data that has lead our so-called leaders in the United States Congress to abandon their principles (if, in fact, they had any to begin with) in favor of their personal electoral interests. It's a sad spectacle and makes me ever more pessimistic about our chances of survival in the fight we now find ourselves in.

In the months since the last election, Democrats in Congress have made no bones about their desire to "do the people's will" by getting us out of Iraq. For most such a move cannot come soon enough. From Murtha and Pelosi in the House to Harry Reid and Carl Levin in the Senate, the Democrats are in full-scale retreat. Having finally found victory in the November '06 election, the Dems have now taken their "leadership-by-polling" technique to new levels. When asked "why should the US get out of Iraq?", their answer is invariably "because the war is unpopular and the American people want us to". There, isn't that simple?

Never mind that the Framers of the Constitution rejected the notion of direct democracy in favor of an indirect model where our elected officials would make such decisions for us. In their enduring wisdom, it seems the Framers understood that the will of the majority was no substitute for leadership -- particularly in areas of foreign affairs where access to information (and intelligence) are key. Our leaders are supposed to lead, not follow the polls. Maybe we should ask the proverbial Jane Doe in Des Moines, Iowa about what to do about Al Qaeda in Iraq after we leave? I mean, she must know as much about the Sunni-Shia problem as Condoleeza Rice, right?

Of course, the polls have only given cover to the Democrats in their quest to teach George Bush a lesson, and to show that war is never the answer -- no matter the problem. Unfortunately for those of us who love America and believe in the importance of what we are doing in the war against terrorism, the cost of such a lesson is unbearable. The Democrats desire to cut and run in Iraq is myopic and ignores the history of appeasement. We learned in 1983 after the Beirut barracks bombing and in 1993 after Mogadishu that our enemies prey on weakness. They believe we are soft and can be beaten. And guess what? They are very likely right.

We are now our own worst enemy. We've largely defeated ourselves in Iraq -- first by a poorly designed occupation strategy and now by a Congress that would rather win elections than do the tough work on the ground. I'm ashamed of ourselves -- and for every member of the US military in harm's way in Iraq, I'm embarrassed.