I salute and thank domer for his diplomatic skills, but in the result, my views came out with a little too much sugar-coating for my taste.
In the first place, I don't object in general to the "folly" of war - - I'm an enthusiastic supporter of war at the right time and place and against the right enemies. WWII for example. The Falklands War for another.
Secondly, I don't think of this particular war as a "folly" - - calling it what it is, exactly, it's a criminal act of unprovoked aggression, one that if the Nuremburg Laws were fairly applied, would unquestionably have resulted in death sentences for its architects.
Third, I think we need to recognize the subjectivity of the word "good," as in "good military news." I suppose to a decent, patriotic German of WWII vintage, "good military news" would be hearing that the Allies were thrown back into the sea at Normandy but there is nothing good about a military result which advances criminal actions.
I think domer has correctly recognized the distortion that "wishful thinking" can bring to an analysis of military matters. I'm aware of my own vulnerabilty to it - - sometimes I knowingly give in to it, but mostly (I hope) I examine my conclusions carefully to see if they aren't just wishful thinking. I can't resist pointing out, however, that the same phenomenon is much more easily seen on the opposite side of the ideological fence. "Good military news" rewards those who support criminal acts of aggression in flagrant breach of the Charter of the United Nations and set back further and further the goals and ideals of the United Nations, of which the U.S.A. was the primary founding member, and the cause of international law. With the exception of the deaths of al Qaeda members killed by U.S. action, "good military news" should give no one any cause for rejoicing.
