The contentious troop surge debate now raging in Congress is indicative of a specter overshadowing the majority party. I would characterize this specter, with all its potentially debilitating political manifestations, as “Vietnam Syndrome.” For just as the Vietnam experience in the past helped radicalize the party on the domestic front, so too, has it helped shape and define the party’s current foreign policy views on the appropriate use of American military power to protect our long-term national interests. After a brief flirtation with “centrism” the party finds itself on the precipice of lurching inexorably leftward once again.

Initially inchoate, the phenomenon of Vietnam Syndrome has now congealed, finding its ultimate expression in the telling gesture that no Congressional Democrat could rise out of their seat and applaud when President Bush called for victory in Iraq during his State of the Union speech. They dare not rise to applaud, for they might incur the wrath of the modern-day anti-war Jacobins who now flatter themselves as indispensable for the party’s future political prospects and are prepared to agitate forcefully to implement their agenda which does not include support for the troops nor victory in Iraq.

Vietnam Syndrome is the logical result of a warped and myopic view of history. As illustrated by their views on foreign and national security policy, for many Democrats today, history began and ended with the Vietnam War. Many of the party’s politicians cut their teeth during the Vietnam protest era and they have maintained an anti-military, anti-American posture consistently throughout their political careers. Does John Kerry come to mind?

For those singularly afflicted, the contour of every foreign policy issue is disproportionately colored by this conflict. The historical irony is that today, it is the Democratic Party, not the American military, which is stuck in a quagmire. Imbued with this quagmire mentality, for the Democratic Party, no exercise of American power, especially military power can ever be legitimate or justified unless the entire International Community approves —an impossible standard to attain and a dangerous one to which to aspire.

In short, many Democrats are ashamed about the superpower status of the United States and feel that we must atone to the "International Community” for this geopolitical reality. This inevitably breeds not only an unconscious blame America first attitude but also, its corollary — a solicitous and disproportionate response to conditions that Europeans find objectionable. This outlook prevails despite the constant anti-Americanism of our “allies” many who, by choice, maintain no credible military presence and many of whom have consistently pursued policies that are increasingly inimical to our interests.

How did today’s anti-war faction achieve such prominence within the party? The ascendant rise of the left, which is the domestic symptom of the party’s Vietnam Syndrome, cannot be understood fully unless one examines the underlying psychosis that gripped the party in 2000.

A perennial conceit of the Democratic Party is its unapologetic belief in its moral superiority. As they fancy themselves the party of compassion, they feel entitled to govern. The Gingrich Revolution of 1994 was a stunning blow to their collective ego from which they never recovered. That trauma was only exacerbated by the close election of 2000.

Rather than engage in a painful self-examination as to why they continued to be rejected by voters, conspiracy theories abounded. They comforted themselves that their loss was due, not to their arrogance, weakness on national security and defense issues nor that they had allied themselves to the policies of the Licentious Left, rather, the election was somehow stolen from them by a treacherous U.S. Supreme Court who “handed” the Presidency to George Bush.

This mentality helped foster the ensuing pathological hatred of the President, and since they have always felt it was their divine right to govern, a strategy to say anything and do anything to win.

Discontent with the war in Iraq provided the Democratic Party its signature issue with which they exploited ruthlessly in their quest to regain congressional power. Toward that end, they willingly and assiduously courted the radical left wing, and with it, all their attendant baggage including their anti-American propensities and over the top hate-Bush invective.

The various manifestations of Vietnam Syndrome have coalesced in the utter incoherence of the party’s Iraq War posture. The gap or disconnect between words and deeds as it relates to propounding an intelligent and consistent position on this issue have now reached Titanic proportions. The Democrats never tire of telling us that they support the troops. But it is axiomatic that you cannot support the troops if you do not support their mission. They confirm the General who will lead the troops under the new strategy, then rush to offer symbolic resolutions condemning his plan. For those interested in victory, it’s time to end the Alice in Wonderland liberty the Democrats have been taking with our sensibilities.

For our enemies, both present and prospective, the realization has been dawning for some time that there is no longer any need to defeat the world’s only superpower on the battlefield. It is much easier to parry, hit and run, and ultimately, wait for the inevitable seeds of domestic discontent to ferment, sown by politicians who have no sense of history and no concept of long-term national strategic goals, save for what the latest polls indicate are the requisite steps for retaining political power. Perhaps our adversaries in Iraq will become attentive students of American Politics, and, much as Ho Chi Minh did, let the Democratic Party do their bidding.

If this seems unduly harsh, consider the following:

When the Democrats won the recent Congressional elections, the terrorists greeted their victory with jubilation and glee—and not without good reason. This unbecoming event received scant attention by the mainstream press and was greeted with a collective yawn on the part of the party establishment. That this unflattering incident did not engender a serious and sober-minded introspection on the part of Democratic Party elders’ shows truly that the party of Scoop Jackson is but a distant memory.

There was a time when such an event would have instantly provoked anger and embarrassment; a search would have ensued of the party’s soul and which of its core principles might have occasioned such a provocative statement to be associated with it as a social and political institution. Sadly, for the Democratic Party as well as the nation, that time has long since passed.

Having made their bargain with the radical left, the Democrats may find it surprisingly difficult putting the anti-war genie back in the bottle. As Rahm Emmanuel recently discovered, much to his chagrin, the vocal Cindy Sheehan faction of the party will not be easily placated.

Will the ghost of Eugene McCarthy come back to haunt today’s Democratic Party?

Only time will tell.