How to talk to a right winger (if you must)

This comes from a discussion at the website of The Nation in which one perrenial Bush defender observes that we progressives don't usually agree with military commanders the way we agree with the six retired generals now calling for Rumsfeld's resignation. Another Bush defender chimes in with the "success" of the war on terror.

I said this before, months ago, and I'll say it again now: The right wing (which doesn't necessarily include sober conservatives) has nothing more to add to the national debate that is constructive. At least LL isn't whistling past the graveyard with a wistful can't wait until November sentiment any more; he probably realizes that November will be something for Bushbots to dread.

LL, can you do better than then pointing out that retired generals are very strange people for us progressives to agree? We know that. However, the point you miss is that the occupation of Iraq has gone so badly and the situation is so out of control that there are many, many reasons to oppose continuing the effort. It doesn't matter whether one opposed the war from the start or came to oppose it recently, the fact remains that the planning for post-Saddam Iraq was done poorly and based on wishful thinking. And that's being charitable. Perhaps if they were serious about bringing democracy to Iraq they would have been more interested in the views of cab drivers in Baghdad or longshoremen in Basra than in those of a convicted embezzler living in the US. That should have been one of the first hints something was wrong. The fact that this den of liars and thieves kept repeating the same arguments after each one had been discredited should have been another.

What concerns the generals is that Rumsfeld has attempted from the start to fight a war on the cheap without adequate troop levels or equipment. He has arrogantly chastised any general who disagreed with him and continued to stay his course no matter how disastrous it has turned out. If things don't work out as well as they ought to, he denies there's a problem rather than adjusting to it. This is no way to fight a war.

Then there is the point that to fight against Saddam, who had nothing to do with September 11, military resources were noved from Afghanistan, where Osama, who had quite a bit to do with Spetember 11, has been hiding. That is no way to eliminate an immediate threat.

If six retired generals are calling Rumsfeld incompetent, perhaps it is because knowlegable and reasonable people can arrive at that judgment. We needn't concern ourselves with what sycophants like Myers and Franks say.

And Rio, really, you outdid yourself with this one:

There is nothing like the threat of continued success for our nations "War on Terror" to make the less than honorable stateside opposition scream louder!

What success? If invading Iraq and turning it into a hotbed of international terrorism and setting that country on a course for civil war is a success, you have an awful low bar for success. What would it take for the mission to have been a failure?

Of course, Iraq really isn't part of the war on terror -- central battlefield or otherwise. Since Saddam had no relationship with al Qaida, invading Iraq could not have possibly have had any effect on combating terrorism. The very assertion that it did is dishonest.

There are no adequate troop or equipment levels in an illegal war.

for us progressives to agree?"

I, for one, respect the views of veterans. Having been to war, and opposing it, who better to know first hand how screwed up Rummy is?

'. . . the fact remains that the planning for post-Saddam Iraq was done poorly and based on wishful thinking . . .' Makes you wonder if planning for Iran isn't following the same course.