Shame on the liberal hawks (with a few exceptions- Ron Silver, Christopher Hitchens) who, when the test came, flunked.

Kerry was the only candidate at the debates who proposed any sort of strategy for fighting the insurgency- the "spineless liberal" even went so far as to chastise Bush for pulling out of Falluja. Kerry kept serious foreign policy advisors around him- like Richard Holbrooke- who openly talked about how it would be a mistake to pull out of Iraq. Today, at Kerry's concession speech, he even made a point of lecturing the left wing of his party on Iraq and its connection to the war on terror, and how both must be won: "Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror." Does this sound like someone a serious hawk should be ashamed of supporting?

Granted, Kerry had been difficult to pin down during the campaign because he was appeasing his left-wing base as well as trying to make sure the moderates didn't jump ship. But you barely have to scratch the surface to find a person serious about seeing Iraq through. And based on what we've seen the last 4 years, it would be quite a feat to argue that Bush is more "competent" on the micro-level managing of the occupation in Iraq.

Bush made the right decision to go into Iraq. But his record in the post-war has been abysmal. I don't necessarily fault him for sending too few troops initially- to do so would be sheer Monday morning quaterbacking- but I do fault him for not changing troop levels when it became apparent we needed more boots on the ground. And I do fault him basing important military decisions- like pulling out of Falluja in April- on domestic politics. And I do fault him for picking the starting date of the war and then not getting armor to every soldier in the theatre. And I do fault him for Abu Gharib. No, he didn't personally humiliate prisoners, but he didn't hold those who did accountable enough, nor did he hold his administration accountable enough, nor did he investigate the prison abuse scandal thoroughly or transparently enough. And, because of this, we lost the moral high ground in a war that was desperately wanting for justification. Bush has dithered with the fight against the insurgency, and it is clear that our occupation has very little strategy behind it.

The election is over now and Bush won, but this debate is still worth having. Serious hawks- liberal or otherwise- should have voted for the candidate that stands the best chance of steering Iraq towards liberal, tolerant and consensual government. That is the "test" that all of us hawks just took. Brookhiser seems to think that wrapping yourself in the flag and showing your partisan colors is good enough to pass, which is precisely why he flunked.