It's ironic that those fumbling with the right way to suggest retreat from Iraq and the Near East wreath their detractions in "realism," since they admit their own unpreparedness for the challenges and uncertainties in this war. Victor Davis Hanson:

It is true that parts of Iraq are unsafe and that terrorists are flowing into the country; but there is no doubt that the removal of Saddam Hussein is bringing matters to a head. Islamic fascists are now fighting openly and losing battles, and are increasingly desperate as they realize the democratization process slowly grinds ahead leaving them and what they have to offer by the wayside. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and others must send aid to the terrorists and stealthy warriors into Iraq, for the battle is not just for Baghdad but for their futures as well. The world's attention is turning to Syria's occupation of Lebanon and Iran's nukes, a new scrutiny predicated on American initiatives and persistence, and easily evaporated by a withdrawal from Iraq. So by taking the fight to the heart of darkness in Saddam's realm, we have opened the climactic phase of the war, and thereupon can either win or lose far more than Iraq.

Iraq and Afghanistan define both our struggle and our peril. Who are we, together with Iraqis and Afghans, fighting? Terrorists and the statist groups supporting them. What terrorists do to Afghans and Iraqis is exactly what they would do to us, here in America, given the chance. The only "realism" in this debate is the rejection of isolationism, and cultural and moral relativism — the failed policies that have allowed every modern authoritarian phenomenon to grow into a world-spanning threat.