The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

You don't need any more info. A fucking child can tell you that if we leave, the place will degrade to disaster and piss off the Arab world forever. We'll have succeeded in moving Afghanistan closer to Europe.

There's no debate here save the mental masturbation amongst policy wonks who think, in a fit of self-delusion, we can somehow cut and run and everything will still turn out OK.

Its our problem child. We have to get it under control. Cutting and running is sheer idiocy. The people who scream "what if it was your child in uniform over there" miss the point. Losing lives because a shithead started a foolish war is awful, BUT, the option is losing hundreds of times as many lives in the future. We don't - we shouldn't - make decisions on foreign policy as important as this one, based on concerns regarding our dying soldiers. That is a harsh to say, but its rational. You can't decide things of this magnitude because of some emotional sway you get watching Cindy Sheehan cry.

The soldiers dying are lives wasted in a clean-up exercise for one of the stupidest decisions in history. But we have no option but to clean up our mess.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

(1) is clearly a good thing and a Win; (2) is one of the items I want to hear debate on; frankly, bringing Democracy to Iraq is not critical to my definition of win, and I have doubts about whether it is an appropriate military (as opposed to political) objective; (3) I want to hear debate on; I'm not convinced, as I indicated before; (4) we'll find out about "willing" once we are more fully disengaged; and (5) I'm happy if we bring home most of our military - let's not set the bar unreasonably high.

So, I'd set the bar for a winner lower than you, but am still less certain we have achieved it or will achieve it (apart from ousting Saddam, which is a clear win).

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Unfortunately, this is about where I come out too. Someone convince me otherwise without engaging in ad hominen.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Shit, Capt... you assume debate still exists as a form of learning and communication of ideas?

You're wrong there, brother. Debate only exists where both sides are open to consideration of others' positions. I haven't seen that since the 80s.

What we have now is shouting matches between unswayable dilletante advocates. To consider anything an opponent offers is conceding defeat.

I think this willful ignorance is why nothing gets done anymore. It's impossible to make any progress where both sides ignore the the holes in their positions and argue from positions of almost divine irrefutable truth. Paralysis. Terminal gridlock, relieved only when one side walks away from the table.

They say we can blame Karl Rove for this, but I don't think he's the Goebbels of this revolution of the infallible advocates. I think its our short attention spans and intellectual laziness. We don't have time to actually understand half what we say, but we know we want what we want and we want to win. So we bark garbage back and forth.

This loss of intelligence is what elevates fools like Dean and DeLay to positions of power. Where there is no truth, and no process for reaching understanding, the unthinking advocate will always be king.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Yes. The question of cleaning it up also becomes an evaluation of things like

(a) how much truth is there to the premise that the presence of US forces are exacerbating insurgents as opposed to eradicating them, and if so, what's the overall effectiveness of our presence and

(b) is there any truth to the premise that our presence is acting as a crutch to Iraqis who effectively rely on our assistance instead of doing the harder work of building their own self-sustaining infrastructure.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

From my reading, I'd say those very valid considerations are about two years awway.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Yeah, but that's not really the debate here. I think it's more, at what point should we think about leaving? What are the metrics that will tell us that the time is right?

Stupidest? Well, I disagree.

Think back to this board in the runup to the invasion. All of the bases for that act were debated roundly. People came down on various sides, and, I'm sure, remain in their respective positions. But the issues were debatable and critical. They included, should a despot who controlled an entire nation through military power and fear be allowed to subjugate that entire nation and murder millions of people will impunity? - how much of a destabilizing influence was he in the entire ME mess? - was he involved in the AQ funding or direction? - how much effect did he have in continuing and encouraging the Israel/Palestine boilover? - was he an immediate threat to us in some manner? - did he have WMDs? - and the like.

There were many bases for this war. Some, like me, agreed with the bulk of them. Others, not so much. But, the issues were there, and were the subject of a board debate and a national debate. After that debate, well, our chosen government invaded.

About the only issue that people seem to want to discuss nowadays is the WMD one. Seems everyone forgot the entire rest of the debate, but they still, to me, form a valid and rational basis for what we did and are doing.

Stupid? I don't agree. I still think it was one of the smartest and most forward-looking moves Bush could have made. And I have a degree - in Science! *

(*ETA - someone just informed me that you have to be over forty to understand this reference.)

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I'm almost there and don't get it, so forty may be a good cut-off point.

I will say that a benefit of history is that the contemporary historian gets the last word in on the debates of the past.

The fact is, most American's would now agree it was a stupid decision, and blaming it on the polls or on the level of support at the time does not change the fact that Bush made that decision.

But, look, he's President, he made it, let's get over that. It is a decision, stupid or not, as you may like, that we are stuck with.

Perhaps we will keep electing Presidents who make stupid decisions, of both parties, as long as debate is no longer a valid means of communication, as Sebastian rightly says. Debate is now little more than a meaningless side-show practiced by a bunch of irrelevant eggheads like us. But let's keep it, someday, maybe...

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

National Lampoon Radio Hour, circa 1970.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Who was it that said, I can't believe Nixon won, I don't know anyone who voted for him?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Do you really want to compare Bush to Nixon?

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Well, Dean surely does not represent all, or even most, Democrats on this issue. OTOH -- he serves a purpose, just as (for example) Newt Gingrich served a purpose for the GOP when they were in the minority.

I'm a member of the DLC, myself, so not exactly a Dean follower.

S_A_M

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Your tone seemed to be "I don't know anyone who thinks the decision was a good one . . ." I know lots of people who think it was.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

FWIW, I should avoid reading Dean. It causes me to post intemperately.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I did not mean that. I meant that today most people do think it was stupid, even people who supported it at the time. Not all people, and I didn't say whether they were right or wrong - but, most people DO think it was stupid and regret that we did it.

There are many things that I have done that are, in retrospect, stupid. (And, some of them, in retrospect as well, were fun enough so that I don't care if they were stupid.)