That’s funny. I mean, it’s pretty ballsy to assert that Bush’s war is winning on the heels of the worst amount of deaths(for one day) yesterday in Iraq since the war began.

We can’t stop suicide bombers, and we can’t police a civil war for forever.

This war mirrors Vietnam in almost every way.

We never should have gone in, and we need a plan to get out as quickly as possible.

Hasn’t this pretty much been happening continuously over the past four years? We flood an area with US Troops, quell the violence, leave that area, and the insurgents/terrorists flood back in?

The question will become, will the Iraqi forces left in their place maintain both their loyalty to the Iraqi Government, and maintain discipline to keep the violence quelled?

I hope the answer is yes, but until we actually leave those areas, calling this “surge” a success is far too premature.

Little Music City Footballs.
.

I think we all hope that the White House isn’t lying to us this time and that the war really is taking a turn for the better.

Still it seems suspect to me that with all this good news flooding in, Bush would decide that were not actually gonna get to read any report his general gives (despite promising that we’d be getting just such a report), but instead will have the communication from Petraeus given to him and other politicians in his administration to interpret as they please and then release that political report to Congress and the American people.

If Iraq is now the beautiful tourist resort the Bush-faithful are making it out to be, why can’t we get the military assessment we were promised instead of a politically-spun Bush assessment. I guess I just don’t understand the need to lie if things are going so well…

So, for a month things have quieted down. After 4 years of fighting, I don’t think this really signals much, except perhaps a momentary regrouping and changing of strategy on the part of the insurgents. If you were fighting for God, the controller of Eternity, would you be giving up just yet?

Insty has been posting “good news” out of Iraq for the last four years.
-
“We’ve turned the corner!”
-
(How many corners do you turn before you figure out you’re going in circles?)

So four and a half years after starting a war that will last “six days, six weeks, I doubt six months“, redistributing troops is supposed to make us think it was all a swell idea?
-
Every time we pull back from an area, attacks increase in that area. The four bombs that killed 200 people just a couple of days ago were in areas where we’ve decreased troop presence. Attacks in Tal Afar are on the rise because we’ve decreased our presence there.
-
But gullible members of the Bush league are so eager for some validation of their crappy idea that they’re willing to embrace anything. Even the Petraeus Report, which is actually going to be written by the White House. When is the point when you guys are finally lied to enough about this war that you’ll quit being so damn gullible?

Sharon, its funny you would call this Bush’s war. Why not call it Harry Reid’s war, or Hillary Clinton’s war, or John Kerry’s war, or John Edwards’ war?
-
Sharon, we can do whatever we want for as long as we want. But’s lets assume we leave now. Is that such a good idea? A responsible Democratic position would be, we never should have gone there, but if we leave now, things will be much worse, not only for Iraqis, but also the United States. You have compassion for the people of Darfur. What about the Iraqis who will be slaughtered after an abrupt pullout? You mentioned Vietnam, which is absolutely nothing like this conflict. What happened after that great Democratic party success? Oh yeah, that worked out well.
-
The Democratic opposition to Iraq is nothing but a political calculation, just as Democratic support in the beginning was. Now, as I said in the post, they find themselves in an untenable position. They are screwed. It’s like, “Oh my God, America might actually be successful in Iraq. Thats bad news for us”. Of course overthrowing a dictator, installing a govt, holding elections, and occupying the country for a few years, while averaging less than a 1000 casualties per year, is percieved as unsuccessful in this day and age.
-
I linked to Harry Reid, but there are many other Democrats saying the same things, including Dick Durbin, and even the New York Times.
-
Some time in the future, video of Harry Reid’s declaration of defeat will rank up there with video of Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” comment.

Which part of “And as President Bush continues to cling stubbornly to his flawed strategy, Al Qaeda only grows stronger.” sounds like “See? We were right to listen to Stoopid”? How desperate do the right wing droolies you quoted have to be for good news to think that’s it?
-
Furthermore, I’ll ask you the same question I asked Ned Williams last week and never got an answer for. We lost twice as many soldiers in July 2007 than we did in July 2006. Iraqi civilian deaths are on the rise. 30% of the nation can now get a clean glass of water, but 64% could in 2004. They still have electricity for the same third of the day that they had it for three years ago.
-
So by what possible barometer are you calling this a success?

So by what possible barometer are you calling this a success?

Benchmarks, facts and measurements are for pussies. The decider decided: It’s a success!
.

Those of us who have been at this game for a while are very familiar with “Instawanker” Glenn Reynolds and the fabulous fairy tales he spins.

Other fabulous fabrications from the mind of Glenn Reynolds: Nancy Pelosi’s staff “demanded” a plane large enough for her “entourage”; the AP “fabricated” a horrific story about Sunnis being burned alive, and invented the source, Iraqi police captain Capt. Jamil Hussein; liberals are opposed to Joe Lieberman because he’s Jewish not because of his position on the Iraq War.

I could go on and on, but suffice it to say: calling Glenn Reynolds credible is pretty freaking laughable.

So when it gets hard and the enemy actually fights back, we should declare defeat and cut and run? When the enemy decides to fight, we should decide to quit? Maybe we are a paper tiger.
-
Rick, so the war is a failure in your partisan eyes, let me ask you this. Do you think we should pull out or do you just think the occupation should be handled better?
-
Is it hope for success when a Democrat is in office and hope for failure and defeat when a Republican is in office? Thats what it seems like with most Democrats, elected ones that is.
-
As for barometers, ask that question to Harry Reid, Richard (head) Durbin, and the NY Times. Personally, I think Iraq has always been a success. Invading a country and overthrowing its government, then hanging their dictator, also holding Democratic elections, sounds pretty successful to me.
-
Failure is rewarding the terrorism by giving them exactly what they want, an American exit and a new haven for Al Qaeda.

It always amazes me how few people seem to recognize the infinite shades of gray between black and white.

Failure is rewarding the terrorism by giving them exactly what they want, an American exit and a new haven for Al Qaeda.

Except for the American departure, we’ve already given them that. George Bush couldn’t have helped al Qaeda more if he and Turd Blossom had been cranking out recruitment posters on the mimeograph machine in the basement of the White House.
-
What is it that makes my eyes so “partisan”? The fact that they’re still open? The fact that I’m still looking for some fleeting sign of success every time you guys link to some right wing jagoff that wants to tell me we should keep throwing more soldiers at the problem because it’s going so swimmingly?
-
And one more thing—- Cut the ridiculous “Democrats are hoping for failure” idiocy. Every time I’m thinking “This Glen guy, unlike most of the right wingers, still has a functional brain cell or two left”, you decide you wanna get in touch with your inner Ann Coulter and start cribbing her lines.
-
See, the difference between right wingers and those of us with brains— You guys write about wishful thinking. To hear the clowns tell it, the insurgency was in its last throes three and a half years ago. And every time they say something that stupid, here come the conservative bloggers creaming their jeans to tell us “Hooray! We’re winning!”
-
Meanwhile, neither their death nor ours ever seems to slow down all that much, and not a single problem in the country is being taken care of.
-
To answer your pullout question— The first thing I would want is an honest and sober assessment of whether we’re actually doing any good by staying there or not. Are we preventing violence? If so, are we actually preventing it or delaying it? My theory, which seems to be borne out by the fact that every time we reduce our troop presence in a certain area, violence goes up in that area, is that we are delaying inevitability.
-
Does al Qaeda have a new home? Yeah. Paid for by George W. Bush to the tune of 3700 dead Americans (So far) and half a trillion dollars.
-
We don’t do well against insurgencies. So the real question is how many more Americans have to die so you can skip out on admitting this is a failure?
-
Oh wait— I know the answer to that. Just long enough to get a Democrat into the White House so you can blame them for the failure.

[…] to maintain, every part weighs more than a compact car, and I know as much about a diesel engine as Glen Dean does about original thought. (Once, though, Ginger and Big Bad Ivy helped me put an implement on my […]

Rick, I absolutely promise you, when Hillary Clinton is sworn in, I will be the first to support her in the war on terror. I will hope that she executes the war well and becomes a war president hero or whatever. I don’t care who gets credit.
-
Reading what you wrote (wishful thinking), and what others have written, really shows the difference. You have one group of people who believe America is the greatest country on earth. Those people are optimistic and will do whatever it takes. Then you have another group, who is not so sure of America’s greatness. They are pessimistic and cynical.
-
Some of the latter group, not saying this group includes you, is so blinded by their hatred of George Bush, that they really do hope for Americas defeat. They want us to lose, so that they can pin this defeat on George Bush.
-
Rick, do you really not believe that some Democrats view Iraq as an opportunity to get more votes? Do you not believe that they chose that position based on polling data, rather than principle? Having chosen that position, do you think they are sitting around and hoping for success so that they can be embarrassed and proved wrong. Among that crowd, there is nothing, as far as success is concerned, that could ever change their mind.

Those people are optimistic and will do whatever it takes.

Short of signing up to go to Iraq to fight, y’mean.

They want us to lose, so that they can pin this defeat on George Bush.

That’s already been established. There’s no way to magically turn a war of aggression into a noble cause, which is why when you’re describing a pony, and pointing at a pile of horseshit, 70% of America can tell what’s going on.

Truth is, it’s Bush’s war, and there’s no good way to move forward with it. It was wrong from Day One, and it’s still wrong, now.
.

Those people are optimistic and will do whatever it takes.

Short of signing up to go to Iraq to fight, y’mean.

Oh, well done my friend. Well done.

They want us to lose, so that they can pin this defeat on George Bush.

Again, I have to wonder what is so warped with the wingnut mind whereby the only way we can “win” in Iraq is through guns and bombs, and a diplomatic or political solution is always “defeat.”

I don’t care who gets credit.
-
I believe you when you say that— But it’s not the question. The question is who gets blame, and whether we’re sustaining a losing effort so the other guys take the blame for the loss.
-
You see, you’re resorting to conservative fallacies again. You assume that just because people are willing to look at the facts objectively and not see this great success we’ve been hearing about for the last four years, that they somehow love their country less than you do. Refusal to acknowledge mistakes and failure isn’t love by any definition.
-
It’s not about pinning the defeat on Bush. It’s his. He was the guy that told us the WMDs were there. He was the guy that told us there were operational ties to al Qaeda. He was the guy that decided to bet American lives on it. And now, he’s the guy trying to string it out long enough that the Republican nominee in 2012 (Even he’s smart enough to know you guys are losing in ‘08) can blame whichever Democrat is up for re-election.
-
Rick, do you really not believe that some Democrats view Iraq as an opportunity to get more votes?
-
Actually, I think you’re turning it on its head a little bit. How much of the Republican “Yay, we’re winning” despite there being no signs to indicate that, is an attempt to spin and pretend that voting “stay the course” has been a good idea?
-
Do you not believe that they chose that position based on polling data, rather than principle?
-
I’m sure there are some, particularly the DLC triangulators I want so badly to be rid of. But remember that an awful lot of Democrats were well ahead of the public on the war.
-
Having chosen that position, do you think they are sitting around and hoping for success so that they can be embarrassed and proved wrong.
-
Trust me, Glen. If they’re looking at the war objectively, they have no worries of being proven wrong— Only outspun. You know, kind of like when US casualties double over this time last year, Iraqi casualties go up 25%, and the entire nation can’t get reasonable access to utilities, yet when we decide we’re going to shift troops from one area to another, a surefire recipe for disaster so far, you guys run out and say “We’re winning! And if you say otherwise, you hate America and are pulling for its defeat!”
-
If this is your idea of winning, watching a football game with Republicans has got to be bizarre. “The other guys are up 14-10. We’re winning!!!”

when Hillary Clinton is sworn in, I will be the first to support her in the war on terror.

May you will, maybe not, but this post is about the Iraq War which is distinct from the “war on terror.”

You have one group of people who believe America is the greatest country on earth. Those people are optimistic and will do whatever it takes. Then you have another group, who is not so sure of America’s greatness. They are pessimistic and cynical.

I once heard Al Franken make (what I guess was supposed to be) a joke that went something like this: “Conservatives love America the way a child loves it’s parent. It’s a love that assumes America can do no wrong and anything that America does is right and proper by virtue of the fact that America is doing it. Liberals love America like an adult loves another adult. They recognize the faults but love America anyways. They welcome attempts to correct those faults to make America better off.”

While I’m sure most conservatives would reject that statement, it actually raised my level of respect for conservatives quite a bit. Not because I agree with their way for viewing things, but rather because I could at least then understand it. I remember what it was like to be a young child and feel my parents were perfect.

In this case it helps me understand why you think it’s cynical and pessimistic to observe what is happening and make the logical conclusion that we made a mistake. But admitting a mistake is not pessimistic or cynical. When you’re on a trip and you make a wrong turn, you don’t just keep driving. You admit you made a wrong turn, turn around, and get abck on course.

[…] balloon is just going to expand somewhere else..if you understand my meaning. This is not a ‘Democrat hoping the war goes well so that we can win elections‘. The world does contain shades of gray. I can guarantee you that the Democrats will win big […]

the Democratic Party, who have politically invested all of their hopes and dreams in the defeat of the United States in the Iraqi front of the War on Terror.

This is an example of a ’strawman argument.’ Characterizing one’s political opponent in a false way and then attacking. This tactic has been used by authoritarian regimes like the Nazi’s to portray political opponents as enemies of the nation. Thankyou Glen for showing us this tactic and remaining true to your authoritarian roots.

This tactic has been used by authoritarian regimes like the Nazi’s to portray political opponents as enemies of the nation. Thankyou Glen for showing us this tactic and remaining true to your authoritarian roots.

Godwin’s Law has been amply demonstrated here. Time to move along, folks.

Just calling a spade a spade and backing it up Kate O :

“… people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
- Hermann Goering
2nd in command of Nazi Germany

Yes, William, I’m familiar with the quote. (In fact, I have a degree in German and have lived in Germany. You could say I’m quite familiar with German nationalist propaganda and history.) And I’m largely in agreement with your political position. But comparing Glen to a Nazi, however oblique the comparison and however you feel you can back it up, is still bad form. Have you nothing more substantial to say in rebuttal of his statements? Because bringing up Nazis is a sure way to lose any debate.

Think about what I am saying. Would it be good for the Democrat party if Iraq went well? The answer has to be no.
-
They, meaning elected officials and not the voters, have invested themselves in the notion of an unsuccessful mission in Iraq. They bet their political future on it. So does anybody think that Harry Reid wants to be reminded of his past statements?
-
Come on folks.

This is quite possibly the most idiotic post I’ve read in a long time. From “We’re winning!!!!!” to “The Democrat [sic] Party loses if America wins!!!!” to “Aren’t the Democrats rooting for defeat?!?!?” to “Since the Democrats don’t have a realistic plan for post-withdrawal Iraq, they want America to lose to Al Qaeda!” What is this, Sean Hannity 101? Get real.

Glen,
Do you even understand who “the enemy” is in Iraq? Do you even know why the politicians in Iraq are unable and unwilling to come together and form a government to which all sects and ethnicities adhere? Do you know what the folks we are training are doing with the weapons we’re giving them? Do you know what other big country next to Iraq supports the Shi’ite-led Iraqi regime, and sustains it in its sectarian conflict with Sunnis? Do you really think the Sunnis who turned against Al Qaeda have suddenly accepted minority status in a democratically elected, majority Shi’ite Iraq?

If you really thought through these questions you wouldn’t make such blathering comments challenging the patriotism of those who oppose the war, or think it’s a foreign policy disaster. Sure, there are no good solutions going forward. Withdrawal brings with it horrible costs for both Iraqis and Americans. But long-term occupation, in my judgment and increasingly in the judgment of the American people, will only make Iraq less stable and America less able to fight jihadist enemies across the globe. It’s destroying our military; we can’t surge past April 2008 because we don’t have the manpower. Iraq is in a civil war. We are doing nothing to stop that civil war. Jihadists are getting more powerful worldwide because we continue to occupy Iraq in a fruitless effort to referee that civil war. Why are we there?

They, meaning elected officials and not the voters, have invested themselves in the notion of an unsuccessful mission in Iraq. They bet their political future on it.

Which is why they keep voting for it, I suppose? To continue to fund it, to continue to empower the president? Is this some game of reverse psychology?
-
That borders on babbling insanity. You’re quickly getting into black helicopter/satellite brain control/Area 51/”Bush knew” conspiracy-mongering territory here.

Andy, the Senate majority leader announced to the whole country that we had lost Iraq. This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It is just plain common sense. Many of them, including Schumer, admitted that bad news in Iraq was going to help them pick up Senate seats. Others have said that success in Iraq would be “bad news for us”.
-
Why do they keep voting for it? I don’t know. Probably because they lack courage and conviction. I am sure they check with the pollsters one more time before casting their ballots though.

Before I am done, will somebody, anybody, please tell me how a public perception of good news from Iraq will be good for the Democrats. After calling it the “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” and declaring it a defeat, is there anybody who really believes support for the war bodes well for Democrats? If you don’t believe that, and I know you don’t, then why did you spend twenty something comments arguing with me?
-
Notice I said “public perception”, instead of just “good news”. I realize that for some of you, absolutely nothing would be good news.

Before I am done, will somebody, anybody, please tell me how a public perception of good news from Iraq will be good for the Democrats. […] If you don’t believe that, and I know you don’t, then why did you spend twenty something comments arguing with me?

If, suddenly, things in Iraq do an about face and some great positive thing comes out of our decision to offensively attack a sovereign nation, then it will be a political problem for the Democrats. I don’t think anybody here has a problem with THAT part of your post. Where we have a problem is with your asserting that Democrats want to see American troops killed and Iraq remain in a state of civil war simply to boost their polling numbers. Everybody wants things to work out for the best, however acknowledging that they are NOT shouldn’t be something to be afraid of doing.

Simply acknowledging common sense observations doesn’t mean someone is rooting things to continue. If you spot a drunk and drugged junkie laying on the side of the road and comment “gee that guy’s not really making something of himself” does it follow that you don’t WANT him to make something of himself? Of course not.

be good for the Democrat party if Iraq

That’s “Democratic Party.” Although, you could spell “Party” “Par-tay” if you have a mind to.

Have you nothing more substantial to say in rebuttal of his statements? Because bringing up Nazis is a sure way to lose any debate.

The concept of Sir William the Pious winning a debate is rather humorous.

Let’s take the parties out of this for a moment. I even want to forget ideologies. It boils down to pro-(this)-war, and “anti-war”. And, I think both sides are taking their cue in this debate from the Vietnam experience.
-
As “pro-use-of-force” (isn’t there a more fair descriptive term than “pro-war”?) people see it, “anti-war” people got exactly what they wanted in the mid-70’s. The “pro” side thinks that the “anti” side is responsible for the genocide that came later. I ain’t saying it’s true, I’m just passing along what I’ve heard.
-
Most “anti” people will quickly change the subject from The Killing Fields, etc, beacuse during the war they were very single-minded about getting “our” troops home, and would rather not “own” a genocide.
-
Although I don’t think it’s fair to pin a million deaths on the anti-war side solely (hello? Johnson? Nixon?), the anti-person must wrestle with it nevertheless, because the signs were there all along.
-
The same thing is happening here, and I understand what Glen is saying. If our ONLY goal is getting the troops home, and that is considered “victory” for one side or the other, that side must “own” what comes later, at least partially.
-
Now, one could be childish with a na-na-na-boo-boo attitude saying “if we hadn’t gone in in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened”, which I think is insincere, because that ship has sailed. We are in the here and now, and our decisions TODAY will have consequences one way or the other, and THAT’s what we should be discussing.

Slarti, the Killing Fields were in Cambodia, and we were never at war with the Cambodians. Except, of course, to bomb and defoliate their country. Sure, there was hell to pay in Vietnam after our departure, but are they not stable trading partners with us now? The wholesale slaughter never occurred there.

Conde - this is rough because I”m making a second hand argument. I was 10 years old in 1974 and knew a heck of a lot more about Evil Kneivel than I did Vietnam at the time.
-
I’m trying to play peacemaker and pass along what I’ve heard from many “pro” people who were of age at the time.
-
I don’t remember what the link between the Vietnamese pullout and Pol Pot is, but I have heard it before and will try to look it up.
-
The reason I wanted to present that side is my philosphy that if you can make a position look ridiculous, you don’t understand the position. I’ll try to find some links by non-crazy people.

Now this one is fascinating:

http://www.mekong.net/cambodia/revisit.htm
-
There’s a lot of stuff there, but this was interesting:
-
The U.S. propped up the Lon Nol regime until the very end, even after his stroke meant that governance of the country fell mostly to his advisors. In reality, Hanoi and Washington had more real influence on Cambodian life than anyone in the Cambodian government. Lacking authority over borders or territory, Cambodia effectively ceased to be a functioning nation-state: “… The fighting in Vietnam, exacerbated by U.S. intervention, reduced Cambodia’s capacity to remain neutral or to control its frontier with Vietnam. The loss of sovereignty embittered many Khmer…” (44)
-
The immediate effect of the 1970 coup in the countryside, Sihanouk’s traditional stronghold, was bloody. Violent rioting and unrest ensued, and peasants murdered Lon Nol’s brother. Most important, thousands joined the Khmer Rouge’s insurgency. The Khmer Rouge went from having just a few thousand armed troops in early 1970, to having 12,000 by the year’s end. And in 1971, the DIA. reported that “Vietnamese communists” (referring to the Khmer Rouge in coalition with North Vietnamese comrades) controlled 65% of the land and 35% of the population. with an army of 10,000. (45)

-
The main thrust is that there was a regional, not localised war, whether we named it or not. So, the two cannot be logicalyy serparated, IMHO.
-
However, like said, I wasn’t there, so I’m going to have to depend on the old coots for clarification.

Andy, the Senate majority leader announced to the whole country that we had lost Iraq.

So, is Henry Kissinger campaigning for a Democratic victory in 2008? He said that our current course of action won’t produce a victory in Iraq.
-
Democrats aren’t invested in a loss for America. That’s not “common sense” as you call it. It’s a lie. It’s a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the real issue, which is that the Bush military adventure is a continuing failure. It continues to fall short of its goals (whether it’s containment or spreading democracy or promoting human rights or fighting terrorists or finding WMD) despite the investment of over four years, nearly $1 trillion, and the loss of thousands of servicemen and women in action due to death and injury - not to mention the American contractors blown up doing such things as trying to install toilet mains in a kill zone. Sectarian slaughter continues apace, the power vacuum is evident, and there is no end in sight.
-
So what do the GOP faithful do? Rig the blame to someone else! It couldn’t possibly be that there was no plan, or the plans were a crock - America isn’t successful because Democrats want us to fail!
-
Bullshit. There hasn’t been that sort of sabotage. To suggest as much is base, ugly conspiracy mongering on the level of “Bush let us get attacked so we could get into a war.”
-
Do you really want to sound like Cynthia McKinney? ‘Cuz that’s how you’re coming off.

Funny, you acuse the Democrats of ‘wanting defeat’ when they have been saying for years now, ‘let’s declare victory and leave Iraq.’

Your premise is flawed.

If you believe that both Reid and Pelosi have not implied this war is lost you are in denial. They are both an embarrassment. You can write a novel about this war but the Dems have conducted themselves in such a way as to threaten the troops and the country.

Murtha is also an embarrassment. All the while Bill Richardson cannot get the time of day.

This is a perfect hell. One side doesn’t know how to finish what this war, the other side wants to score political points while Americas are fighting in a foreign land.

If we don’t finish this war we will finish a much larger war later.

“Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in it’s place? That’s a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off … so it’s a quagmire … How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgement was not very many and I think we got it right.”

Dick Cheney, 1994

He knew what would happen in Iraq, he also knw that his Halliburton stock would swell 3000+% … obviously, his values on American lives lost changed in favor of greed. You should read the first comment of this post if you’d really like to know the rationale for this war.

Oh and KateO. I never called Glen a Nazi, I called him what he is, an authoritarian.

If our ONLY goal is getting the troops home, and that is considered “victory” for one side or the other, that side must “own” what comes later, at least partially.

My personal opinion is that, now that we have destabilized what was a relatively stable (to that region of the world), if brutal, country, a bloody civil war (of a magnitude larger than what we’re seeing now) is inevitable the moment US troops leave. It will happen if we leave tomorrow, it will happen if we leave in ten years. I will not “own” that as it is a direct result of the decision to invade in the first place which I have never supported. What I will “own” is the lives (of all nationalities) that will be saved by not dragging it out longer than it needs to be.

Now, one could be childish with a na-na-na-boo-boo attitude saying “if we hadn’t gone in in the first place, this wouldn’t have happened”, which I think is insincere, because that ship has sailed.

I don’t think it’s childish or insincere to hold someone accountable for the results of a decision they made. That ship may have sailed but the wake it leaves behind exists only because that ship passed through. You can’t make a decision, and then assert that because the decision has already been made, you’re no longer responsible for anything that comes as a direct result of your decision.