The "disaster" in Iraq.

Larry Diamond, apparently with a straight face, claims that Iraq is engaged in a civil war "by one common social science definition--at least 1,000 dead (with at least 100 on each side) from internal hostilities in which one side tries violently to change the state or its policies."

I don't know why lefties are so fascinated by niggling arguments like this. "Bush Lied!" because some documents which supposedly underlay the story that Saddam was shopping for yellowcake in Niger were laughable forgeries. Now the argument is that the pundits were correct that the bombing of the Golden Mosque would set off a civil war in Iraq. Well, that also settles the point that this is Vietnam Redux and Quagmire II, doesn't it?

Except that nobody but a victim of profound pseudo-intellectualism could leverage this stuff into an argument that the policy has failed. It all depends on what your definition of "is," or "lied," or "civil war" is.

But hey, Guys, when did we all come to the agreement that the policy has failed in Iraq? Even conservatives are talking like it's an established fact! Remember these are the same stalwarts who chickened out when it came to standing up to fanatics over a measly bunch of bad cartoons! When did we hand over foreign policy to these jerks?

I don't think our troops feel like they've lost, unless they're listening to CNN. How's this for a war cry: "The media lied! Fingers were dyed! Where's our pride?" Where are we going to hide if we turn tail now?