William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, argued that views on the war remained fluid and that the White House could still rally support for the effort if Americans "are convinced we can win."3 years ago, just before the war started, i was talking to a war supporter and made the mistake of using the word "lose" in a sentence about the war. personally, i think if we going to invade a country its a good idea to consider the possibility of what happens if things turn out badly. that just seems like common sense to me. you can't weigh the costs against the benefits unless you're willing to mention the potential costs.
but my interlocutor saw it differently. to him, what i was saying was completely inconceivable and also tantamount to treason. i tried to explain what i meant, i wasn't talking about a battlefield loss, but rather just a situation where iraqis just don't stop fighting even after coalition forces swept across the country. but my explanation didn't help. we were just talking about completely different things. i was talking about the west bank, and he was talking about d-day. i think his views about the war were a lot more typical in those days than mine were.
which is why william kristol's statement represents such a stunning change in the mood of this country. not only is winning no longer a given, but the debate seems to be over whether the american people can be convinced that it's even possible.
