last night's conversation between john mccain and jon stewart deteriorated into both men talking at the same time and drowning each other's words. (i could be wrong, but i thought stewart was trying to engage the senator, but mccain kept filibustering.)

before that, mccain's final argument for remaining in iraq had been emotional rather than logical: because our brave men and women believe the mission is 'worth it' and right and in defense of our liberty, &c.

they may very well believe that, but it doesn't justify continued use of force. our troops' perspective is limited to their individual experiences. morality, legality, economics, sociology, diplomacy, and politics are among the strategic factors that must be taken into account but of which the troops as a whole are largely unaware. their beliefs result from a combination of indoctrination and cognitive dissonance. they are not the strategists or policy makers who (we hope) have a broader view of what's happening in iraq and in america and who must evaluate how our use of force impacts both countries and the world.

mccain thinks he understands war, and he surely does know how it feels to be in one, but a combat pilot doesn't see the big picture, and a POW knows little of what's going down on the home front.

his failure to recognize the parallels between iraq and vietnam comes from that narrow viewpoint.