I take exception to your argument for the following reasons:

1. Arguing that it is harder to leave than to stay, creates a permanent presence. Over the long term, this will result in more death and more instability. Certainly, a metaphor might be proffered--pulling a tooth to stop the advance of decay. Certainly, it would take years for the tooth to fall out by itself as a consequence of that decay, but during that time the decay would spread, and more teeth would be lost. In an interim period, six months, or so, yes, it seems that it would be better to stay until a permanent resolution is reached. But what if taht takes actually years (and yes, I know that a withdrawal, once begun, might take a year or longer)? Then every day we spend there, we are actually contributing to the loss of life and instability, not preventing it. Your prescription is short sighted, based on the fact that it would be 'hard' to get out of the quagmire. Since it is hard now, the only difference woudl be that the next president would take the responsibility for the cataclysm of his own making, not the one that his predecessor ignited. But the only way forward is cataclysm, stay or retreat. Retreating ends the potential for suffering, even if it continues it, and even perhaps more intensely, for a short time to come.

My second point is self evident. There is not a nation on earth that has been succesful in occupation for longer than eight or so years (without eventual annexation). At a certain point, the occupying power must retreat or find its own welfare inextricably linked to the territory it now occupies (see Israel, there is literally nothing about that country's culture, economy and foreign policy, that is not about that illegal occupation). Right now, we can blame the error on Bush, but within a few more years, that occupation will most likely become our only identity to the world (and some would argue it already has). And our only identity as far as we, Americans, are concerned. I can only imagine the bad things attached to that reality; nothing good comes to mind from it.

Lastly, the war was illegal, unjust, and immoral. It has polluted our national dialogue about the use of force, it has even re-cast Vietnam as a just war. Some of the new recruits joining this war were only ten years old on nine eleven. Imagine, their young minds warped by all of the mendacity of the Bush years, and now they are the 'volunteers' who are keeping this crazy mess going. They volunteered for a war taht the majority of the US despises and wants to end, they need to leave as soon as possible, and they need to do so while running the risks that they should have damned well understood (or should have been made to understand by their blood-thirsty recruiters) when they joined up.

And I say that with a son who may soon be there himself.

Her claims about what The American People "want" are meaningless given the context in which she makes them. She's an actrice playing a part. Cokie Roberts plays the same role, only older and wiser don'tchaknow. And I think Cokie actually believes what she spews is God's Own Truth™.

But there's method behind this playacting. Oh yes. While they may be regurgitating what they have heard from their "sources", the point of it is to tell the masses what they are to think and believe. Engineering consent as it were.

I'm sure Mara knows what Obama's real position is, a position that has been available for many months. That position says there will not be a withdrawal from Iraq a la Saigon. Ain't gonna happen. There will be a redeployment of combat troops. There will be no withdrawal. A case could be made that what she's trying to say is that The American People want what Obama wants, which is not in any way independent of "facts on the ground," but is a dramatic policy shift.

Polls suggest that isn't what The American People "want"; they want to be done with this nightmare once and for all. But they're not going to get that, not with either of the candidates.

So. They have to be brought to believe that what they are going to get (which is a permanent American military presence in Iraq and the Middle East) is what they want. What they really want.

It ain't pretty, but that's what the game is about.

Reading comprension: FAIL

Comprension

Spelling: FAIL!

Fine, you are arguing against the Bush/Cheney sunk cost falacy, not against me. Then what is your reason for trying to fail me?

sunk cost falacy(sic)

Spelling: FAIL!

Mostly because you are just picking at nits. You do know what "nits" are, don't you?

It is difficult to speak intelligently about something as nebulous and difficult to define as "What The American People Want" but the occupation of Iraq is right up there as not being too damn popular. You FAIL for that reason.

Shooter 242

You consider the difference between legal and illegal a matter of semantics? - Shooter 242

No, it is your "argument" that is a matter of symantics, as it is for the most part devoid of substance. No one posting on this article, including me, has written or even implied that the difference between legal and illegal is "a matter of semantics"; you just made that up. Perhaps your resorting to straw man arguments is just another manifestation of your insubstantial claims

-- dr rick

****************

Dont waste your time dr rick. little scooter likes to perform rectal ventriloquism. Reason and facts have to meaning to him(?)

However, ridicule is always fun .

1. Arguing that it is harder to leave than to stay

I never made the argument that we should stay because it is too hard to leave.

@Foodle

Reading comprension: FAIL

-- L.W.M.

*****************************

Thanks for the laugh. But I would fail foodle on listening skills too. And probably logic. and political theory... and..well I'll quit there.