[Note for the liberals in our audience, I'm actually asking these questions, I'm not trying to make a point.]
Which is the more logical and ethical position? Total victory over our enemies or a policy that strives to acheive a draw?
Aren't those who are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq really asking for a draw (or worse, a loss) in the War on Terror?
Let's look at recent conflicts for a minute: We went to Vietnam looking for a tie and we lost. Korea? The draw we got there is still causing us headaches. Gulf War I lead to Gulf War II because Saddam was left in power.
Shouldn't the goal of war be total victory? Shouldn't total victory be achieved as quickly as possible in an effort to reduce, as much as possible, the death toll on both sides?
The whole point of going to war is to win, is it not?
I know that these questions will have me painted as a warmonger in certain circles. I'm asking these questions because I believe that if we are to be at war, and we are, we should win it. The cost of losing is definately too high. It seems clear that the cost of another stalemate, is just more war.
Recently, our good friend Mahatma was asking about public sacrifice as it relates to war efforts. I honestly don't think that a sensible public would go for a prolonged war wherein the objective is anything short of total victory. Anything less makes any sacrifice made by the public a waste, does it not?
I also believe that it is more preferable to be fighting our enemies "over there" rather than "over here." Isn't the lesson of 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7 that we can't fight them here? We had to pick a piece of territory or two upon which to fight them over there. Is that not logical?
Is it not time we demand total victory?
