SOME opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat. A number of them are simply predicting it, while others advocate measures that would make it more likely.For me, it's not a matter of advocating defeat more than it is not taking kindly to being lead to the slaughter. As my friend who sent me this link said:
It's amazing how two smart people can be so silly. If you decide to optionally go to the casino that is war, you should have thought about the consequences. Hitler *had* to win WWII. That was not a helpful notion for Germany.And again, we see that those on the "right" lead by faith over fact, and chose to selectively abide by history's lessons.
When government officials argued that American credibility was at stake in Indochina, critics ridiculed the notion. But when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, he and his colleagues invoked Vietnam as a reason not to take American warnings seriously. The United States cannot be strong against Iran — or anywhere — if we accept defeat in Iraq.Trumpeting the words of a man we had executed is hardly a credible warning, or is it? Were we weakened by the outcome in Vietnam? I don't think so.
The bigger question is why is it that those on the "right" have such little faith in the people of America that they have to paint those who would disagree with being led to the slaughter as those would also applaud defeat? It's not productive, nor representative of the people I know.
The position of these two authors, who are not entirely objective here, is not tenable, and much like their idols in charge, set up false debates to bolster their own position. If I argue with them, I'm already labeled as defeat lover. I don't love defeat, but I also don't like being led to the slaughter. Do you?