Don't try selling crazy here; we're all stocked up.
So you're now calling our military personnel and leaders liars? Gee, wonder if those pangs of guilt you're feeling are affecting your questionable judgment?
As one who has been there (I'm guessing you have not), I can most certainly tell you that the media and politicians are far more demoralizing than an enemy you're prepared to face.
People who are supposed to be representing you in Congress, who have abandoned you, who have lied about everything and anything to destroy your Commander in Chief and your mission, who have withdrawn their support of what you are doing.......are FAR more demoralizing than the enemy in the field.
It is YOU who are 'crazy' if you don't understand that.
Gee, politicians popping holes are less demoralizing than random sneak attacks. Whoop-de-doo!
That's a justification?
"Oh, puh-leeze. Yeah, right, a few politicians popping their pie holes in Washington are more demoralizing than random sneak attacks in the field."
Correct.
Getting shot at is not demoralizing.
It is many things: alarming, invigorating, and infuriating.
But demoralizing it is not.
It makes you want to kill the bastard who shot at you.
Now, what gets demoralizing is when you're not allowed to do it, because of some politician's "pie-hole back" in Washington spewing inane limits on what needs to be done in combat.
About the nadir of that in the current war is when Fallujah was surrounded the first time, the scum were trapped in, and the political decision was made to retreat. That was disastrous militarily, and that WAS bad for morale. When you've got the sob's who have been trying to kill you tied up in a sack, you throw the sack in the river and drown 'em. You don't untie that sack and "Eh-oh, no harm no foul, back to your base, you scamp!"
Fallujah I was the nadir.
But after that, things got better. That level of political interference has diminished, and the fight is being ground out.
Bottom line:
Demoralization does not come from being in danger, being shot at.
It comes from being shot at and not being able to, or allowed to, respond.
Think World War I or Normandy. Troops on the move may have been in terror, but they were rushing with adrenaline and charging to the attack. On the other hand, sitting in a trench, getting bombarded for days at a time, unable to shoot back: THAT is demoralizing.
And, after the Fallujah I embarrassment, we have not been doing that in Iraq, at all.
The troops are not demoralized.
But thinking about knees weakening back home, which could result in all those deaths and woundings of their comrades being IN VAIN - THAT is demoralizing.
If the United States loses this war, it will be a DISASTER for the whole world. Even a Frenchman can see that!
No, the US must press on and win it.
Having committed to the war, it must be fought. And Americans need to still their tongues and cease their criticism of the war until it is over. That doesn't mean that they should not criticize stupid TACTICS, like pulling back from Fallujah. Weak or irresolute commanders and civilian leaders need to be removed, and the only way that happens is appropriate professional criticism.
But questioning the MISSION itself, continuing to agitate against the war itself: this is immoral, damaging, and seeks the defeat of the USA. The anti-war protestors do not admit that this is what they are doing, but it is so.
And they need to stop it.
Since they won't, countervailing voices need to speak loudly and strongly, and shout them down. The only way the war can be lost is if American civilian resolve collapses. The people trying to bring that about don't think they're seditious, but they are.