Naiveté or is it Negligence on a Grand Scale

This is becoming a regular thing...comments that become posts. This comment comes from Mr. Robert Stokely and was left in repsonse to my D-Day post. He writes:

I recall the words of a soldier who, upon the 50th anniversary of D-Day, was asked "with so many getting cut down around you as you scaled the cliffs on that beach, nearly a 100% kill ratio at that point, how is it that you were able to keep going to the top, and help gain a foothold on the cliff?"

The answer "somebody had to do it and I was the one left alive and able to do it."

I take stock of the many documentaries, written accounts, and stories recalled of that day on Omaha and other beaches where it wasn't going very well, soldiers were dying in many numbers, the enemy looked as though to be inpregnable and too strong, and I take stock of present thinking about setting timelines to pull our troops out of a present conflict. I ask myself this question - what if the people trying to lead today by popular congressional vote of money tied to support troops had been leading that day as that soldier scaled the cliff as so many died around him, and many more landed upon the beach below?

Certainly, I acknowledge the differences in the wars and combat zones, but then again, are we really fighting a enemy whose view of domination is any different than the one in 1944? Are we fighting an enemy who, if we said "let's bring our troops home" would chase us to an imaginary border at some point in the middle east and then stop and leave us be to return to our shores to live in peace at a distance? We didn't face an enemy that would have then and we do not face one now that would.

Which prompted this reply from me:

I couldn't agree more. The thought that by setting a timeline for withdrawl will somehow protect us is nieve at best and negligent at its worst. On a day where in history the US accepted over 2000 KIA in a single 24 hour period how do those who claim that the cost of 3000 in a 4 year period is somehow unacceptable in the advancement of freedom, is beyond me.

The current party of Know-Nothings who claim that Iraq is not a theatre in a greater war but somehow a distraction from the real conflict, and hide behind the myth that by ignoring the true enemy they can somehow protect those today that they could not protect on September 10, 2001 are the real reason we are still in Iraq and losing those they can not bear to lose. It is they who add to the bloodshed and length of conflict with their arbitrary rules on who we can and can not engage and then only after a specfic set of rules have been applied that add to the ever climbing count that they decrie in the media and yet use as some sort of punctuation to prove their infalability.

If the lessons of D-Day are forgotten, how will we ever expect to win another conflict? If sacrifice to many Americans is unacceptable for our way of life to continue, how will we truely survive when real sacrifices are thrust upon us?

If anything the lessons of D-Day should show the nay-sayer that through force of arms and a united front we as a nation can overcome almost seemingly impossible odds, and their dissent is not helping the war effort but rather exacerbating the situation.

Which brings me to the meaning of the post title...is the tactic of the Democrats to "cut and run" from Iraq simply naiveté or is it negligence on a grand scale?