I notice that we tend to assume that what is, is okay, and we would rather live with a lie and call anyone crazy who uses logic rather than question our assumptions.
I remember a thread back when I usd to post at FrontPageMag's comment boards where I posted that the Draft is tantamount to slavery. A bunch of people asked how I could be so crazy as to suggest that, and one poster, "Big Bubba" as I recall, kept calling me a "mindless twit." (He used this epithet whenever he didn't feel like actually supporting his ideas with logic). Only one poster who disagreed with me somewhat gave a rational response. He felt that the draft was more like involuntary servitude, being temporary.
I also tend to think that this tendency drives this post by Glenn Reynolds, where the fact that we have had troops in Europe for 60 years because we didn't have an exit strategy in World War II is a good argument against needing an exit strategy. Hass he ever considered that maybe that was a BAD outcome that we should try to avoid in future wars? That maybe subsidizing Europe's defense so that they could spend more money on socialism was a BAD policy?
No, of course not.
"This is all because Ike went in without an 'exit strategy.'"
Yes. Which shows the folly of not having one.
That is all.