Seven GOP senators jump ship … McCain’s campaign is in trouble … Lee Hamilton says the situation is still “grave and deteriorating” … the headlines keep coming about the war, the surge and the killing in Iraq.

Would that we could go back to the pre-Vietnam days when Americans had a backbone, stepped up the plate and committed to winning. But we can’t.

All this talk of redeployment, scaling back and more isn’t going to lead to progress in Iraq. I’ve said this before: such measures are suggested by folks not interested in winning. I’ve also said before that we must win this war — period.

Stephen Biddle had an article yesterday in the Washington Post echoing this sentiment. Here’s some excerpts:

… few lawmakers are comfortable with abandoning Iraq or admitting defeat. The result has been a search for some kind of politically moderate “Plan B” that would split the difference between surge and withdrawal.

The problem is that these politics do not fit the military reality of Iraq. Many would like to reduce the U.S. commitment to something like half of today’s troop presence there. But it is much harder to find a mission for the remaining 60,000 to 80,000 soldiers that makes any sense militarily …

… The politics make sense, but the compromise leaves us with an untenable military mission. Without a major U.S. combat effort to keep the violence down, the American training effort would face challenges even bigger than those our troops are confronting today …

… If the surge is unacceptable, the better option is to cut our losses and withdraw altogether. In fact, the substantive case for either extreme — surge or outright withdrawal — is stronger than for any policy between. The surge is a long-shot gamble. But middle-ground options leave us with the worst of both worlds: continuing casualties but even less chance of stability in exchange. Moderation and centrism are normally the right instincts in American politics, and many lawmakers in both parties desperately want to find a workable middle ground on Iraq. But while the politics are right, the military logic is not.

Amen. The politics might make sense, and those who choose political gain while leaving more troops in danger and a region in turmoil don’t deserve their offices.

Which brings us to John McCain. I’m not the biggest McCain fan, but he’s right about the war. Which doesn’t make sense politically. While the press was having a field day with the high profile resignations from his campaign, McCain was on the Senate floor, warning of the cost of failure.

Again, some excerpts (via Power Line):

… Many of my colleagues would like to believe that, should any of the various amendments forcing a withdrawal become law, it would mark the end of this long effort. They are wrong. Should the Congress force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq, it would mark a new beginning, the start of a new, more dangerous, and more arduous effort to contain the forces unleashed by our disengagement …

… Already, the terrorists are emboldened, excited that America is talking not about winning in Iraq, but is rather debating when we should lose …

Let’s not forget that Osama bin Laden was encouraged by the U.S.’ lack of response to previous incidents and our premature withdrawal from conflict (under administrations of both parties).

Their movement thrives in an atmosphere of perceived victory; we saw this in the surge of men and money flowing to al Qaeda following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan. If they defeat the United States in Iraq, they will believe that anything is possible, that history is on their side, that they really can bring their terrible rule to lands the world over. Recall the plan laid out in a letter from Zawahiri to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, before his death. That plan is to take shape in four stages: establish a caliphate in Iraq, extend the “jihad wave” to the secular countries neighboring Iraq, clash with Israel — none of which shall commence until the completion of stage one: expel the Americans from Iraq. Mr. President, the terrorists are in this war to win it. The question is: Are we?

I fear we are not, and haven’t been for some time. There’s plenty of blame to go around for why we are not — politicians on both sides of the aisle are more concerned with poll numbers at home than winning a now essential war in Iraq. To the point that they are willing to put our troops in more danger and sacrifice who knows how many lives in Iraq to the jihadists.

This couldn’t be more clear. Especially since Gen. Petraeus, the man in charge of the “surge” in Iraq, says he thinks we can get the job done … if the politicians in Washington give our troops the time to do it.

Say what you will, thank God for John McCain. We need more politicians willing to lose elections to do the things needed to really win this war.

Would that we could go back to a time when America’s leaders would actually lead and ignore the political costs. Funny, back then those were the ones who won elections.

UPDATE NRO has video of John McCain ripping the New York Times‘ reasoning on the war in Iraq. CHECK IT OUT HERE.