In war, there are usually only two exit strategies: victory or defeat. The latter's easier. Just say, whoa, we're the world's pre-eminent power but we can't handle an unprecedently low level of casualties, so if you don't mind we'd just as soon get off at the next stop.
Even Democrats, judging by the result of Murtha's resolution, know this is dumb. But we haven't really defined what victory looks like. If the President felt more comfortable divulging his strategies and selling them to the American people, we might be able to have a real conversation on the subject. But his presidency has been (or at any rate, acted like it's been) under siege since it started, so everything is played on a James Bond, need-to-know basis. Consequently, the President's arguments are broad and not specific.
So yes, in time of war that many people still consider debatable, the President needs to consistently articulate his arguments with something more than "stay the course." But there's more than a little suspicion that the Left is unwilling to be convinced that victory is even desirable. Consequent arguing in bad faith gets us nowhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment