The premise that we can wait until we know we will win the battle is wrong. What happens is that the other side keeps winning the battles and getting stronger and we never have a chance to win again.
The problem with the Custer metaphor, is that while Custer lost the battle, the blue-coats won the war. Loosing one battle doesn't lose the war. In another guerrilla war, the Vietnamese lost all the major battles, but won the war. But not fighting guarantees a loss, in war or politics.
If the goal is to win the hearts and minds of the populace, which is the primary goal of guerrilla warfare, the object is to keep up the fight, win or lose, until you wear out the opposition.
You lose a lot more political capital by not fighting, than by fighting for well defined principles even if you lose. The publicity alone is worth the effort, win or lose.
First, I apologize for my remark about the “DUmmie troll”.
Second, I think we just have different opinions about what the COST would be of failing to “support” an increase in the national debt limit, this time around.
Finally, let’s both work to encourage the GOP to pass real spending cuts in their budget for 2012.