Yeah, throwing in the towel and just leaving the ring are two totally different things, too. But the result is the same: you lose, your opponent wins.
Not necessarily. I think we need to finish Iraq because we’re there, but when we “finish” there’s still going to be violence (obviously there can never be 100% peace and stability in any country). We will still have enemies in the country when we leave but that doesn’t mean we’d be “throwing in the towel” because we’re leaving on our terms. Leaving on one’s own terms is not surrendering or throwing in the towel. We have to decide at what point victory is achieved.
From what I understand ahving talked to people that have served in Iraq, the majority of attacks come from people who are paid by operatives (usually Al Qaeda) to shoot at American convoys. THey aren’t really the “terrorist insurgent” one thinks of when watching the news. At this point, I think Iraq is near ready to handle itself, and I for one wouldn’t be sad if we stopped nation building.
As with all analogies, yours is simply not adequate to address the issue. Leaving Iraq, as well as bringing our troops home from the over 700 bases we have abroad, does not result in anyone "winning". That would necessitate that we were defeated, but defeat cannot take place unless we actually lose. And I firmly believe we can keep fighting in Iraq for a hundred years without losing, although it would bankrupt the nation in the process. What I believe we need is a basic policy change, one that would give us a strong national defense so that we could actually protect our borders.