Stabbed in the Back

Well, as I predicted a long time ago (but, then, who didn't?), prominent conservatives have begun to look around for someone to blame for the apparent failure of their little adventure in Iraq. Glenn Greenwalt notes that they seem to have settled on goating (a) the military--which apparently didn't fight hard enough--and (b) those who had the temerity to point out that the war was undertaken for weak reasons that were misrepresented. (b) shouldn't surprise anyone, of course, but I guess that (a) does surprise me a bit. Anyway, in effect the emerging story seems to be that the neo-con war effort was stabbed in the back. See, admitting error is for the benighted reality-based community.

One reason it's alleged to be the fault of liberals, as Greenwalt notes, is that they just didn't have their hearts in it. If that criterion is at all reasonable, then there's additional reason to blame the military: most soldiers in Iraq want us to get out.

Anyway, to review:
If you point out that a dishonest war is dishonest, then losing is your fault
If you point out that a stupid war is stupid, then losing is your fault
If you fail to ardently support a stupid and dishonest war, then losing is your fault
If you fight in a poorly-planned war and fail to win, then losing is your fault

On the other hand, if you foolishly instigate an ill-advised and possibly unjust war and screw it up at every turn, then losing is not your fault.

I hope this is all clear now.