>>>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.

I should have left "loses" in quotes like it started. It is a relative term. I would agree with your definition.

>
>>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.
>
I think there is still too much in transition at this time for an immediate full withdrawl. I do believe that as Iraqi security forces gain more control that the US should stand down. A gradual withdrawl over the next couple of years.

>
>>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.

I disagree. If you accept that a consequence of immediately pulling out is that the US "loses" then advocating an immediate withdrawl is advocating a US "loss". While other reasons may influence the decision, if the "loss" concept is accepted then it is advocating a loss.

>
>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."

Agreed on both counts.

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

Also agreed. I was mainly pointing out that not all criticism has been flatly ignored by labeling.