I really dont. I would suspect that immediate pullout proponants got to that point because they see the number of troops killed and wounded, the number of iraqis killed and wounded, the apparent iran-friendly government being established... if lucky, the hemoraging of money, the unchanging admin talking points, and the opportunities lost. And they think that the situation is untenable. Not because they want the US to lose. Huge difference. Its a cheap charge.

I thought Rich had a good point:

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.

>
>...Do you think that there is no one who wants the US mission in Iraq to fail? You can continue to call it a strawman but the fact remains that many would be happy if the US pulled out without establishing a stable Iraq democracy.
>

>>Take your "immediate pullout = WANT a US defeat" over to KOS and post it to start a discussion. I would be curious about the replies you get. Your cheap charge dismisses those who see it as the best option at this point. Arguable? sure. "Want to fail"? COMPLETE BS and disgusting. I suspect you'll get a few 'already failed' replies. But i also think you would be surprised about the discussion that entails. In fact, I'd be interested to see how many do advocate an "immediate pullout". I dont think its very popular a position. As far as i know, there's Murtha and maybe one or two other reps calling for an "accellerated" pullout. Not sure thats considered immediate. But tossing around "wanting to fail" sure makes a good strawman.