>>I.e. what's fair, IMO, is to remind the reader of the critic of something that the criticised author actually said or did, not to just slap a label or a perceived intent. This "they want America to lose" is highly debatable, and prone to interpretation (as the one I saw elswhere in this thread - "they want withdrawal, but if we withdraw we think it means we lost, therefore they want us to lose" - very stretched), and using that as a means of dismissing the opponent's claims is not painting you as fair at all.
>
>If the US pulls out immediately, the US loses. Do we at least agree here?

If you equate "does not accomplish its goals" with losing, I would agree to accept your term.

>If the US pulls out immediately, Iraq loses. I believe this is true as well but I can understand disagreement.
>
This implies that Iraq can't accomplish its own goals without the US there. I strongly disagree.


>Based on this if you want an immediate pullout, you want America to lose. It may not be your first reason, but it is an effect that cannot be ignored.
>

This is a logical fallacy. Accepting an outcome is NOT the same as wanting it. Wanting a pullout because one doesn't believe that achieving the goals is realistic (or not worth the cost), doesn't mean one WANTS America not to achieve its goals.

Without doubt, some of those who want the pullout do so because they want to see America humbled. Without doubt (at least in my mind) some of those who oppose a pullout do so not out of any desire to help Iraq, but only because they will pay any price to avoid the thought of America "losing."

Taking one possible motive and imputing it to everyone in a group is, unfortunately, a common tactic for both sides of any debate.