What does it mean to win in Iraq?

I've had questions all along about our adventure in Mesopotamia. Some have been answered -- no, we didn't have enough troops, and we weren't using them to best effect. Others -- what is our obligation to the Iraqi people? -- are open-ended.

But the one at the top of this page seems pretty important today.

There seems little doubt that more troops and new tactics are making a difference in terms of the security situation in certain areas.

But what happens when we redeploy to other areas? Are we ready to deal with emerging threats? Is the political leadership in place to build a stable country, or is that another pipe-dream?

How do we know when it's time to leave?

Comments

[James]

This commentary from the Guardian seems to be a pretty balanced summary of the state of affairs in Iraq.

And this ground-level view seems equally relevant.

[Bill Fisher]

Sunday's NYT op-ed by noncoms in the field was . . . interesting.

[James]

This is the Times piece Bill referenced. It confirms the Whack-a-Mole conundrum.

The claim that we are increasingly in control of the battlefields in Iraq is an assessment arrived at through a flawed, American-centered framework. Yes, we are militarily superior, but our successes are offset by failures elsewhere.

[dale]

We are constantly being presented with arguments like:
Ok. Ok. We still aren't being greeted with roses, but kudzu is good enough to keep us for another year.