[Paleopsych] dying for a mistake

[Steve Hovland]

I think that what Kerry cannot say, even though it's true,
is that we have lost, just as we did in Vietnam.

We lost because of strategic errors: bad intelligence, 
a hostile climate, long supply lines, and inadequate forces.

(If you read Sun Tzu it's all in there.  "The outcome of a
battle is decided before it starts."  "To win without fighting
is best.")

Success in this situation now means cutting our losses.

In the end the people of Iraq will determine what stability
means.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Christopher" <anonymous_animus at yahoo.com>
To: <paleopsych at paleopsych.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2004 10:31 AM
Subject: [Paleopsych] dying for a mistake


> 
> >>Is the war in Iraq a mistake?  "Yes"
> Are soldiers dying for a mistake?  "No"
> This makes no sense.<<
> 
> --Actually, since cleaning up a mistake is a worthy
> goal, it IS possible for soldiers to die as a
> CONSEQUENCE of a mistake, but for a good purpose. No
> matter who gets the US out of Iraq will have to
> sacrifice lives, either American or Iraqi, in the
> process. Whatever action minimizes that loss of life
> and provides the greatest chance for stability in the
> Middle East will be the right one, and there is no
> certainty that Bush or Kerry will make the best choice
> possible. Kerry's selling point is that he's able to
> adapt to changing conditions that Bush avoids
> recognizing. The danger in being too adaptable is that
> one ends up being wagged by one's tail. The danger in
> being too resolute is that one can drive off a cliff
> in defiance of reality. What's needed is something in
> the middle, and Kerry may be establishing himself as
> the "realist" rather than the "flip-flopper", a
> significant upgrade in his image. Not good for Bush's
> sense of security.
> 
> It is, of course, possible that Kerry winning the
> election would be a bad thing, in that it would lead
> to Democrats and liberals taking the blame for the
> consequences of Bush decisions. I honestly can't say
> which candidate would result in the US becoming a
> better or safer nation. As much as I dislike Bush's
> tendency to fall into groupthink and tunnel vision,
> there's a part of me that wants to see the
> consequences of current policy fall on those who are
> responsible for it. At that point, a change of
> leadership would offer a fresh start, rather than a
> guarantee of more partisan blamestorming. But is a
> positive shift in the balance of liberal/conservative
> thinking worth the risk of four more Bush years? Or
> would Kerry possibly be respected by Conservatives
> once he's in office? If there were any hint of
> bipartisan support for Kerry, it would be an easy
> decision, but I worry that he'll win and get the blame
> for a mess he didn't create, leading to an even more
> strident and uncompromising anti-liberal regime in
> 2008. 
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
> _______________________________________________
> paleopsych mailing list
> paleopsych at paleopsych.org
> http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych