Admitting Defeat

It's hard. I know it's hard. No one likes to lose, especially Americans. But in a recent WSJ column, I was reminded of the ever-so-popular argument against any kind of funding reduction or timetable for troop withdrawal.

There is no precedent in American history for succeeding in a war when the commanders were taking battlefield direction from members of the House and Senate.

It sounds like someone is in denial. What the right still maintains is that somehow, this war is still "winnable," even if they're not really sure how to define a win. What I would like to hear from the right, like I'm starting to hear on the left, is what would be considered an end point. Right now, conservatives seem to be advocating a vague and indeterminate time in the future when the war will have been won, and peace and democracy reign in a free Iraq. In that case, we'd be there for not only months, not only years, but decades.

What much of the American public is starting to catch on to, along with what the left has known for a long time: that the war is hopeless, there's nothing more we can do, and the violence will only continue, no matter how many troops we may have on the ground.

Although the argument that Congress cannot manage a war is somewhat arguable, but I would say it holds little water. The people are using democracy to stop a government from doing something that they disapprove of -- using the good old checks and balances. Besides, saying that Congress is passing legislation that is unconstitutional is a bit in poor taste, when the Bush administration has taken to slashing up the constitution in any number of ways.