Cliff, Good point(s).

Two thoughts:

First, is there any relevant viewpoint of any importance in American life — or life in general — that could be asserted by one political scientist that would not be “questioned by other political scientists”?

Second, the issue of winnability has always flummoxed opponents of the war. Recall how for over a year opponents of invading Iraq claimed it was hypocritical or inconsistent? Nancy Pelosi et al insisted that North Korea and Iran were the bigger threats. “Why not invade them?” was a relentless counter-argument.

One of the many points in response was, “You might be right, but Iran and North Korea would be harder.” Among the reasons it made sense to invade Iraq instead of North Korea was that it would be easier. Obviously, it hasn’t proved as easy as many of us hoped or thought but the point still stands. If we could topple Iran or North Korea’s regimes (or China’s) with ease I would be for it, just as almost all serious people would have been in favor of toppling the Soviet Union in, say, 1955 if it could have been done painlessly.Of course costs factor into any calculation about when and where to deploy troops. It seems to me this a profoundly obvious point most Americans understand but many elites do not. You do what you can, where you can. If you can’t succeed, it is the height of stupidity to try.

The idea that focusing on victory was a clever bit of marketing is so nonsensical it defies belief. Would the New York Times think it more sensible to roll out a “Strategy for Stalemate?” Or “Plan for Bloody Defeat”?