You assume that Islamofascists will perceive defeat even if we defeat them.
I don't presume any such thing. They might not perceive defeat, but they won't perceive victory to the same extent. More importantly the borderline cases and potential recruits won't perceive victory.
For example, Israel beat Hizbulluh all up and down the map, but when Israel left, Hizbulluh declared victory.
Which would be similar to if we leave Iraq now. We've beaten up the Islamofacists, but haven't quite achieved our objectives. We're closer than Israel was (Israel left quickly, and didn't achieve much in the way of change even though they did hurt Hizbullah.
That is best served by getting out of Iraq and securing our own borders and having an effective NSA and Homeland Security apparatus.
Only playing defense means you don't ever win. Being seen as giving up in Iraq would only increase the threat that the defense would have to cope with.
Arguing that we should not have attacked Saddam's regime in the first place is debatable, but not indefensible. Throwing away the progress that we have made now, when you won't recover the sunk costs by doing so, and when ongoing costs (esp. in terms of injuries and deaths) have, are, or will be declining, is fairly indefensible. |
