What happens when an administration experiences a "military defeat"?

[Cary]

Teryang claims that it always spells defeat for an administration, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2146145|Here>. Of course we have only 1 U.S. precedent. Johnson didn't run and Nixon had his own issues.

One would expect Bush to spin this military defeat furiously and to never give up or fess up. What would he have to lose? After all, it's neither his money nor his lives being squandered and his base is in fact lining its pockets fast and furiously. It's not like the best interests of our nation are of any concern to him, right?

So how does this play out? Are the rightists going to blame those against the war for losing it, like they blame the anti-Vietnam War folks for "losing" Vietnam? I suppose that is inevitable. I mean they couldn't win Vietnam in 10 years and here we are a mere 3 1/2 years into Iraq.

I will give the Bush administration credit for one thing: it's difficult to ponder the enormity of their failures without getting a splitting headache. Perhaps that is why 34% refuse to acknowledge it? What a mess.

[valerief]

1. There is nothing to win. They're making their money now.

When the well runs dry, they'll go somewhere else.

[MadMaddie]

2. Why of course they are going to blame it on Clinton!!

:sarcasm:

[Lar1911]

3. vietnam

When JFK came into office there were less than 1,000 troops and civilians in Vietnam, he bumped it up to 15,000 and Johnson went to half million.

Nixon took the troops out.

We never had a clear objective in Vietnam. The Anti war didn't lose it, we never had something to win.

[Jacobin]

8. Before Nixon 'took the troops out' as you so delicately

put it, he ramped up the war effort, increased troop levels, invaded Laos and Cambodia, and ran on a platform to end the war before he ramped it up.

"took the troops out" is not precisely what happened, but welcome to DU

[karynnj]

13. Exactly!

[Sparkly]

14. That's a rather simplistic synopsis.

Nixon "took the troops out" makes it sound like he had nothing to do with escalating or continuing the war. (Cambodia, anyone?)

I agree the objective was as realistic as "let's change the regime in Iraq and create a democracy that will spread freedom and create friends throughout the middle east!"

[Cary]

16. Agreed that Nixon escalated the war. . .

which is why I named him. However he had the convenient excuse of not being the one who started it and he did run on a platform of getting us out of it. And then with Watergate he created an environment where the Democrats could run a donkey and beat Ford, so that is no real precedent for the question I am asking.

There should be a political price to be paid for the failures of Bush's ideology. They should not be allowed to weasel out of it.

When I think about this I invariably think about their rhetoric regarding "accountability". You have to give them some credit for managing to turn up into down and down into up. I think a big part of that was accidental. But here we are and we are paying a huge price.

[newyawker99]

17. Hi Lar1911!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[endarkenment]

4. You answered your own question.

"Are the rightists going to blame those against the war for losing it, like they blame the anti-Vietnam War folks for "losing" Vietnam? I suppose that is inevitable."

No duh.

Ask yourself why the foolish POW-MIA flags are still flying 31 years after the fall of Saigon. Myths will be created to explain the defeat. Enemies will be indentified. Revenge will be exacted. It will not be pretty.

[Cary]

6. I rendered my opinion as to part of what the answer might be.

We need to anticipate this, and we need fight it as vigorously as we can. Their ideology needs to go away for awhile, again.

[endarkenment]

10. Indeed.

However I am willing to accept the domestic backlash if that is the price we have to pay to stop this latest imperial adventure. I agree that we should of course anticipate this move and work to mitigate their odious activities. Hopefully if we do put them in retreat we will not just have a party and forget about it like we did last time.

[Cary]

7. self delete

[EST]

5. There's no such thing as defeat, it's called "strategic victory."

All these skirmishes are not about victory or defeat, except for the little guy fighting in them: it is tool for the ultimate ownership and control of a select few, beyond wealthy, to whom this is all nothing more than a high stakes poker game.
Yesterday I saw, on tv, a political ad by one of the new repug candidates for governor. Good looking cuss, he comes on the tube claiming to be the only sensible solution for the "culture of corruption," here in illinois. When such topsy - turvy logic holds sway, terms like winning or losing mean little, except for the guy who just took a fifty caliber round through the gut.

[Jacobin]

9. Not retreat, its Advancing to the Rear!!!

[PBass]

11. Declare victory and start pulling troops.

No doubt that is what will happen.

"We have met our objectives" blah balah blah....

[killerbush]

12. 34% refuse to acknowledge it because

They are dumber than Rush Limbaugh, and that boggles the mind!!!

[Cary]

15. Welcome to DU!

I read in the Chicago Tribune this morning that 52% believe that God created man from scratch-no evolution at all.

Maybe more than 34% are dumber than Limbaugh, but apparently that doesn't say a heck of a lot.