Comments on: How Dogmatically Reasonable!

By: Tim Fowler

Tim Fowler — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:24:21 +0000

Your assuming the war is evil, or at least so misguided that not abandoning it immediately will lead to some major disaster. In terms of evil your comparison to Hitler is ridiculous. In terms of practical consequences, the comparison is also ridiculous. We aren’t invading Iraq to conquer it, we are now supporting the elected government of Iraq. And even if we where trying to conquer Iraq there the odds that this would result in the US military being utterly defeated, the US broken up, and half of the country become part of a communist empire is so low as to not be worth thinking about.

By: Jon H

Jon H — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 07:15:05 +0000

“Onces it starts, I think you are supposed to stay the course somewhat, and not re-think the decision to get into all the time. ”

Okay, you’re German. It’s 1939. Poland is eminently defeatable. The invasion has started. It’s wrong.

Someone kills Hitler. Do you continue with the war just because it’s started, and winnable, even though it’s wrong/misguided/evil?

By: shecky

shecky — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 05:12:40 +0000

Even if you accept the premise, it begs the question. How do we know when we’ve won? And what would we have won? Until such things are defined, any cutbacks can be portrayed as abandoning a winnable war.

By: Dave Woycechowsky

Dave Woycechowsky — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 03:05:28 +0000

I think the key word is “abandoning.” You might not support a winnable war b4 it starts. Onces it starts, I think you are supposed to stay the course somewhat, and not re-think the decision to get into all the time. And I say tha as a relatively antiwar, and especially anti-Iraq War person.

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 02:43:49 +0000

Sufficient condition? Evidence? I need an Advil…

By: Greg Newburn

Greg Newburn — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:21:07 +0000

Winnability might be the bare minimum for supporting a war initially, but Jacoby doesn’t say “oppose” a war. He says “abandon” a war, which is different. After all, not fighting a war, and fighting a war and losing, do not yield the same results. Jacoby’s point seems to be, “Whether we should have or shouldn’t have, we’re at war now. We shouldn’t quit now that victory seems possible.”

By: Gil

Gil — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:11:43 +0000

I think it’s clear that Jacoby is using “winnable” as a synonym for something like “Capable of yielding a worthwhile success.” (and “lost” as “Incapable…”).

With that in mind, his sentences don’t seem that strange.

I think Jacoby has a point. If the situation on the ground continues to improve, excessive defeatism now could come back to haunt the candidate in the general election (poor judgement, lack of support for, and confidence in, the troops, etc.).