Bob Krumm, in a post heard round the blog world last week posited that Democrats could win the 2008 election if they would just let Bush ‘win the war in Iraq’. My reaction, like many others, was something to the effect of a party so completely out of power could do very little to ‘let Bush win ‘his’ war’.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot – just exactly what is a ‘win’ in Iraq? There is no traditional control over a certain land mass or any equivalent of the famous 49th parallel in Korea. The cynic might say that a win is what we declare before we get the hell out, but that’s a bit glib.
Considering that only 1 out 80 Iraqi battalions is able to effectively fight without American support (according to the ranking army general in Iraq), do we have to wait until at least 41 of these battalions are ‘ready to stand up’ before we declare ‘victory’? Seems like the next Presidential election might be over by then.
If the neo-con ‘messiah’ Chalubi has anything to do with taking over, I’m not sure if any of my fellow Democrats want anything to do with THAT kind of victory considering that he is also in bed with the Shiite Iranian gang.
So, what is a victory? Americans leaving the Iraqis to their own form of democracy which could lead to a theocracy and low-cost burqas for the ‘little women’?
After we pull out is anything short of a civil war ‘victory’?
In the meantime, would cutting the average American death total to around ‘only’ one a month be considered progress?