May I say it is me who is surprised more by others not seeing invasion as anti-aikido than others being surprised by that view.
Thus it leads me to recognise some have yet to fully appreciate Aikido.
For someone who has never trained from that viewpoint it would indeed seem like a giant leap of faith or unreal and such a person would no doubt find a way of putting it down.
By thinking in terms of right and wrong you create your own confusion.
There is a way which is both harmonious and effective yet is not invasion. Because 'we' are not wise enough to see it merely shows how much 'we' don't know.
Until invasion is seen as arrogant and unnecessary then it merely serves as a barrier to increased awareness and thus better solutions. The better solutions therefore are more harmonious and effective and thus more Aikido.
In as much as 'faulty' premises and 'erroneous' definitions then suffice to say quite the opposite. It brings about a better reality on what the founder meant by those things he said referring to Aikido that many still argue about or don't fully appreciate to this day. ie: love, universal love, non-resistance, no enemies, centre of centre, harmony, loving protection, no pulling or pushing, etc.etc. etc.
...didn't The Founder also teach....irimi?
A key principle of aikido, which is 'anti-aikido'; if only you'd been there to tell him, he could have appreciated aikido!