If you think there is an echo in the air when officials discuss the twin crises in Iraq and Lebanon, you're not hearing things. In both cases the argument for carrying on the destructive current policy comes down to a claim that "we can't afford to let the other guy win."He continues by saying that if Iraq was such a threat to the US and Hezbollah was such a threat to Israel the leader should have used the force necessary to begin with but.....
President Bush says over and over that cutting short the occupation of Iraq would turn that country over to the terrorists and embolden them to carry their wicked plots ever closer to our shores. He also endorses -- implicitly -- Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's view that an early cease-fire with Lebanon would strengthen Hezbollah and make its prime sponsor, Iran, even more of a threat to its neighbors. That political support enables Olmert to wage the kind of campaign he has in Lebanon.
In both cases, the argument is not that continuing on the present course will necessarily or probably yield a positive result. On the contrary, it is basically a claim that it is unacceptable to change -- because the other side will claim a victory.
.....In both cases, the leaders of government failed to make the kind of commitment that could have produced a lasting victory.Both Olmert and Bush are both saying "stay the course" because they will win if they don't. In reality they are both winning the US and Israel do little but "stay the course".
Now they are reduced to saying that they cannot accept defeat. That is a terrible turn.