I'm not impressed with these "quagmire" arguments, and neither is Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit. Sayeth Glenn:
I think the critics overstate their case, and rather consistently ignore the good news that Kevin [Drum, from a link he provides prior to this quote] notes. My anonymous emailer thinks that U.S. casualties are proof of a quagmire. That's an odd formulation, since it means that any war in which troops are killed, which means pretty much any war generally, is a quagmire. There's no question that some antiwar folks think that's true, but pardon me if I'm unimpressed with that argument. (What I said here in 2003 about antiwar folks being disappointed that things had gone so well seems to remain true, as people keep making every effort to portray Iraq as Vietnam). Saddam's on trial, Iraqis are counting ballots, and as noted above we seem to have shaken things up -- though I'd argue not enough yet -- throughout the mideast.
How different WWII would look had it been fought under today's onslaught by the left. Well, maybe not, since WWII was fought under a Democrat president. Still, Kasserine Pass? Humiliation for America, enemy is too strong, let's negotiate a settlement! Took two weeks to reach our first day's objectives in Normandy? Incompetent planning! Bogged down in "hedgerow country"? Quagmire! Battle of the Bulge? Senate committee to study lack of intelligence on the enemy, fire Eisenhower, the enemy is too strong, let's negotiate a settlement! Firebombing civilians? Wolf Blitzer reports from the streets of Dresden or Tokyo, hopefully with a few burned corpses behind him for effect! Japanese fighting to the death on little spots of sand in the Pacific? We'll never defeat such a determined and entrenched enemy!
It's sad that so many of our own people cheer for the other side.