And don't forget that they see the stories of US troops masacaring Iraqi families. Remember Mai Lai.

>My issue in this thread is not to argue whether we stay or go. My issue is the "Want the US to fail" charge. And we do disagree. You argue that lots of progress is being made, you say that people want the US to fail, and yet you say that no one is really actually saying that they want the US to fail. Instead, you infer it. Your charge discounts those people who see whats already happened, how its been managed, they see Abu Grape, they see whats going on now, and they see withdrawl as the best option. That doesnt mean "want to fail". That means best option to them.
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>We disagree. I am certain that foreign interests as well as a few Americans want the US to be perceived as failing in this course of action. Just to be clear I'm referring to those who are asking for an immediate withdrawl. A gradual withdrawl of troops over the course of the next couple years (hopefully starting at the end of this year) is the current stated policy.
>>
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>In light of the progress in Iraq I do not believe this it is illogical to believe that those calling for an immediate withdrawl are wanting America to "fail". The current plan is to gradually remove troops (starting at the end of this year), as the Iraqi security forces are able to take over. This plan gets the US out, leaves the best chance for stability in Iraq and accomplishes the mission. To call for an early pullout is to put that in jeopardy. I stand by my assesment.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>...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.