If you can’t accept the word “failure” then you are not willing to look at the reality of what has happened. If you are not willing to start from there then how can we go forward.

Forget the propeganda mill, and the forward looking policy. To plan where you want to be, you must first work out where you are.

The most pervasive problem in thinking is that many people are still trying to plan a way to victory, where the options available are only a range between catastrophe and failure.

And that is why the idea of the two groups producing coherent policy by working together is a joke. If you think that the thing is lost, you are trying to minimise the loss. If you think that it can be won then you take chances to try to get to that winning position. The two approaches have no middle ground.

Think about it from, say, a retail store’s perspective. The company is doing badly. Some people who think that there is a chance advocate a new, revolutionary fall fashin line, streamlining some stores and revamping the delivery system. Others who think that the company is bankrupt want to freeze the bank accounts, protect the pension fund and call in the receivers.

In this case there is no middle ground. Each starting assumption leads to completely different actions and goals.

Are you saying its not a failure, or that it is, but we just shouldn’t say it out loud? Would you be happier with “failing” instead of “failure”? How about “not achieving successful outcomes?” If we all stood up and loudly decalred we were winning, the enemy propaganda mill would run out of bad things to say? Whenever war critics voice their concerns, the usual response is “you’re aiding the enemy.” No. Screwing up this war from day one is aiding the enemy. Denying the reality of our current situation only makes it more difficult to find a solution.

You want a “productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy” — I can’t speak for the entire anti-war population, but go ahead. I’m willing to listen to productive discussion/debate. The trouble is, I haven’t heard alot. Mabye thats my “liberal Leftie bias”, and I’m not hearing all the other options being offered by the reasoned Right side. Please, school me. I’m being serious . . . I haven’t heard a plan for even a close cousin to success yet from anybody (Right, Left, Center, Insane, anybody), and at this point if Satan himself rose from the depths and had a coherent plan, I’d give it serious consideration.

p.s. — “let’s keep doing the same damn thing that hasn’t worked so far and hope the Iraqis fix the problem so we can take credit for it” isn’t going to count. Neither is “lets keep shooting bad guys until they are all dead”.

p.p.s. — “equivilant bloodbath”. In time or scope? Yes, we leave, the place blows up. No doubt. Are you saying that the steady rates of murder, genocide, ethnic cleansing, bombings, etc. that are occuring under our presence will lead to fewer overall deaths, displacement, and misery that the place blowing up? Possibly, but thats just a guess on your part. We’re propping up a dam that has water pouring thru holes. If we leave, the dam comes down and the place floods rapidly. If we hold the dam up . . .its still gonna flood, it’ll just take a little longer.

You just don’t get it. Not only does using words like “failure” to describe an on-going mission work against the “good guys” having a productive discussion/debate on forward-looking policy, but worse yet it only serves as more fodder for the enemy’s propaganda mill.

This may be a bit nuanced for your “progressive” mind to grasp, but assuming an equivalent “chaotic bloodbath” in both stay/leave scenarios is the height of delusion, deception or denial.

Still looking to divisively place blame instead of mutually seek answers? That’s another move right out of the “progressive” playbook.

Or, do you have no problems in withdrawing to leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the slaughter?”

Let me turn this around — do you think that there’s not a slaughter occuring right now with us there?
Stay — Iraqis get slaughtered, its a chaotic bloodbath, and more Americans die.
Leave — Iraqis get slaughtered, its a chaotic bloodbath, and fewer Americans die.
Given these two choices, I choose #2. Yes, its a huge stain on our honor. Don’t blame leaving for that. Blame going in.

Sorry, Dear -

It’s too late for the Dems to pull their masks off. They did that back in January. Although we already knew how they were. Spinless cowards!!!

OK. First step for Republicans would be to acknowledge the failure of this war and start to talk about what they should do to mitigate this failure. In order to do this they would have to step back from threatening Iran.

so you *still* think there is a pony buried somewhere in this pile of steaming dung?

unbelievable that you can even write “an honorable way out”. WE screwed up. we have created a situation that has no good ending. ALL possible scenarios are awful…more awful for the Iraqis than for the US. but maybe if i just chant “victory! victory!” (for Juan the NeoCon) we’ll find the pony.

Ok, how do we end it without leaving behind a disaster?

Or, do you have no problems in withdrawing to leave hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to the slaughter?

It’s pretty nice to be able to live in this great country of ours and not have to worry about such trivial matters as having people beat, rape, and murder our families with impunity. [sarcasm off]