Maybe you should ask Osama about strong and weak horses
Posted by aogMonday, 03 July 2006 at 22:57 TrackBack Ping URL

I read posts like this which take the viewpoint that surrender and defeat are better than any military losses and only I can think, “Americans will tolerate a lot of screw ups by their leaders, but they don’t forgive surrender, and these people wonder why they lose elections”. It’s very odd that the promoters of such a line of thought don’t think of it as surrender, but what else can it be called?

That may be because such elements of the MAL simply cannot grasp the concept of American victory at arms, having had their world view set in unbreakable Vietnamese concrete. If that were true, if it were a priori impossible for America to win a war, then it would make sense to abandon the field as fast as possible. Unluckily for the MAL, a platform based on the view that America can never win against anyone willing to fight back is not one that resonates with the voting public. What remains stunning is the MAL’s belief that it would, if only they could communicate it more clearly.

The author of the post cannot fathom why the Bush regime thinks that the war in Iraq is a winning issue. It’s not because the war has been handled well, or even that it’s going well1, but that punching up the issue highlights the points enumerated above.

Debating the war also highlights the apparent lack even of desire to win on the part of the MAL (which is likely a symptom of their unwinnable world view). Over at Lean Left is a classic example, where, when challenged to define the Long War and what victory conditions would look like, responded

I think Bush’s moves are not required for success and in fact hinder our efforts so I feel no compulsion to give him an out.

No details of a better plan, not even the claim of having a better plan, but outright “I’d rather lose than help the President”. Gosh, why wouldn’t people vote for a party with that attitude?


1 This brings up another failure of the MAL, which is to exclude the middle ground where a war can not fail but no go so well, instead being a grinding, slow progression. For the MAL, it’s either instaneous, bloodless victory or defeat in a quagmire.

In my view, that war hasn’t been handled well, but about average for how wars are waged by Presidents of the USA. Bush has done some dumb things, but on the other hand he hasn’t given away Eastern Europe to the Soviets or thought that the League of Nations will put an end to war. It’s really bizarre to hear complaints of casualties due to Bush’s incompetence and then a few hours later hear a retrospective on the Battle of the Somme.

Post a comment