Making a mountain out of a molehill when there are much more pressing concerns at hand just seems to be a waste of energy.
‘I also happen to be firmly opposed to any sort of “better solution” that does not include completing this mission.’
“In my opinion, the issue itself is far more important than semantics.”
“Making a mountain out of a molehill when there are much more pressing concerns at hand just seems to be a waste of energy.”
Reducing policy discussions to “shut up!” is more than semantics. It is a life sentence to group-think, until the holes in your policies become a black hole that swallows you up. Dismissing a wide ranging account of the challenges our polity faces, with a corresponding approach to address them, to “he’s for surrender, he’s wrong, shut up” is a prescription for oblivion.
In the case of our polity, on present course, oblivion will arrive as a result of fiscally bleeding itself out until there is nothing left to back up all these bold pronouncements about “complete the mission”, as in:
“Thanks for your order, but dollars not welcome here anymore. Bring yen or yuan or gold dinar please. Thank’s for your past business! Only hard currency accepted in the future. Have a good day!”
If the mission were well defined, there might be something to it. That idea seems to be central in this group-think echo chamber. Perhaps some of the bright lights here could comment on how you will know “the mission is complete” when you see it? Whose surrender will you be taking? Suppose no one shows up to surrender, but the bleed-out continues unabated? At what point do you declare victory and turn it over to the ‘home team’? Since there seem to be several “home teams”, which one gets the brass ring?
I take some encouragement from Bernard Lewis’ comments
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=28255
but not from the empty words I’m reading here and coming out of Perdue’s mouth. Pure sloganeering, like the junk that comes out of Kos-world, and a poor advertisement for the case it purports to champion.