Pyrrhic victories, surely and at best

First, a reminder:

Pyrrhic victory, defined:

Origin: 1880–85; < Gk Pyrrikós; after a remark attributed by Plutarch to Pyrrhus, who declared, after a costly victory over the Romans, that another similar victory would ruin him

Pyr·rhic victory (pĭr'ĭk) Pronunciation Key
n. A victory that is offset by staggering losses. [After Pyrrhus.]

If ever there were Pyrrhic victories, it would be anyone who assumes we've gotten a victory or victories by attacking Iraq.

The fact is, I really don't think anyone's claiming any victories, as such, other than the one claimed by our now ex-president George W. Bush, that he kept us safe from another attack or some such.

Why Pyrrhic?

Well, let's see. more than 4,200 American soldiers killed, many thousands handicapped, maimed and really, destroyed, one way or another, by this war; spending beyond which we can't afford; debt for the war beyond which we can't afford; this was has bankrupted us morally, with our peers in the world; the fact that we tortured people which, may I remind you, is against our own internal law as well as international law?

And so much more.

Yes, Pyrrhic victory.

No one discusses this possibility, really.

No one argues or discusses that maybe we're a war and a bridge and many incursions too far.

In over our heads.

Between this arbitrary war and our unregulated banking and financial and spending messes and our Constitutional issues, huge debts, questions and problems, we're rattled to our foundations.

And no one's talking about it.

Not really.

We're whistling past the graveyard, it seems.

And how can you solve the big problems if you aren't acknowledging their existence?