A widely defined negative is impossible to prove, so it's impossible to prove that the mission was impossible.
This means it's faulty to use this assertion as a cornerstone of a case.

On the other hand, the burden of proof falls on the other party - but it's impossible to prove that the mission was possible.


The disagreement is no fertile ground for a debate, as both parties are logically unable to prove even only their assumptions. This leaves a huge playing field for unfounded assertions, and basically no potential for a conclusive, decisive argument.


It's much easier to argue that a political effort should be carried by political forces, not by military forces. It's hardly possible to make a conclusive case for the assumption that military forces should execute a political effort that cannot succeed by disarming the opposition alone.
State Dept. 'lost' the Iraq occupation by not throwing its weight into the conflict.