We'll soon see if liberals think as highly of retired Major General John Batiste as they did before.

Not so long ago the liberal members of the media had a field day with several former high-ranking military officers who had "broken ranks" and criticized the Iraq war effort, specifically Donald Rumsfeld's involvement.  Former Generals Batiste, Zinni, and others were lauded for their willingness to criticize the Bush Administration.  The mainstream press was more than happy to run lead and front page stories about this criticism.  Although they missed the point for the generals' criticism, they were more than willing to paint this as yet another reason to cut and run from Iraq.

But a recent op-ed written by General Batiste may raise the eyebrows of those who painted him with a liberal brush.  The column begins with four questions about our alternatives in Iraq, including "Do you think that the United States' long-term goals are well-served by a strategy that doesn't include a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq?"

I'm disheartened that so many are willing to embrace the defeatism of the Iraq Study Group.  The ISG lost me when they failed to detail a path to victory and instead recommended that we train Iraqi soldiers.  As one Marine who's there training Iraqi soldiers put it, "What the hell do they think I've been doing over here for the last year?"

But now we have at least one retired General, supported by a cast of others, publicly proposing a path toward victory instead of the path toward defeat. Now that retired General Batiste is advocating a sound strategy for victory, will he still be the darling of the left?  Will the strategy be publicized or ignored?  Will the press celebrate the genius?

Either way, the paper provides a solid strategy for victory in Iraq. It calls for more troops in Iraq and gives specifics for their deployment.  It proposes focusing our main effort on the continued training of Iraqi security forces, and then establishing security and taking the fight to the Sunni insurgency -- all starting points from which specificity can be derived.

Two of the other recommendations are to also be applauded: first, to deal with Moqtada al Sadr and his Mahdi Army, and second, to provide security along the Iranian and Syrian borders. The proposals for the home front are also sound and necessary, especially for upsizing and funding of the military, fixing dysfunctional interagency processes, fully funding the VA, and energy independence.

Most important of all though may be putting this "nation and our government on a wartime footing."  At some point, this country needs to realize that we're in a long fight against Islamic extremists that will require attention and sacrifice not just criticism.