Having read RisingTide's thoughtful diary entitled Clark the Optimist: Victory in Iraq, I was set to thinking about "victory" and "winning". Particularly, how Republicans try to frame the debate, and why they are wrong.
As so often happens, what started as a comment ends up being a diary unto it's own. Hopefully, I can be a lot more succinct in the future but, until then, those responses -- like this one -- will continue to be "below the fold". :-)
In RisingTide's thoughtful diary, he outlined the pragmatic views of General Wesley Clark, and how a stable Iraq fits into the picture of "victory". Victory in Iraq has taken many definitions, but the common theme has been stability. "Winning" the Iraq War, in large measure, translates to leaving behind a stable Iraq; in that case, what role do our troops play and how do we justify bringing them home?
Stabilizing Iraq involves a myriad of elements, the least of which is our military. Our armed forces can no more "win" the Iraq War than they can "lose" it, by such a broad definition. The military certainly plays a role in helping to "win" it, but it can be "lost" (given that definition) no matter how well our armed services discharge their responsibilities. As such, a "loss" of the Iraq War in no way equates to a failure by our armed forces to do their job. This would be analagous to blaming an arrow for its inability to hit the bulls-eye.
With respect to our armed forces in Iraq, conservatives seem unable to make a distinction between the effectiveness of our military and the prospect of achieving the goal they contribute to. And even worse, for them the confusion is bi-directional.
Attacking the prospect of big-picture "success" somehow morphs into an attack on our military's ability to carry out their contribution to it. Suggesting that Iraq is no more stable as a consequence of the surge is "disrespectful to the service and sacrifice of our troops" and "emboldening the enemy".
These same folks, of course, will enlist statistics on captured enemy combatants or a (trumped-up) reduction in casualties as evidence of "winning" (as defined by the diarist). Extrapolating battlefield successes, no matter how one plays with the metrics, into big-picture success could not be more invalid, particularly in this instance, when the military's role is well-defined.
And despite arguments to the contrary, the role of our military in Iraq is painfully simple. Our servicemen and women are there to do what they do best with respect to nation-building, namely establish security.
The maintenance of that security however is, and must be, an Iraqi function. Our armed forces can clear areas of insurgents and Al-Qaeda ad-infinitum. If the Iraqis are unwilling, unable, or unready to maintain it -- to stand up, so that we might stand down -- they will always be insecure. And at some point, after billions invested in training and weapons, after thousands of US lives lost, after their duly-elected government cannot (in three years) arrive at political accomodations that serve the national interests of all Iraqis, after the infiltration and corruption of that government and its security forces (many members of whom seem intent upon putting their personal interests above that of their nation), America cannot be at fault by saying "enough is enough".
Unquestionably, security, the aspect of the conflict in which our military plays the largest role, is but one (albeit important) part of the puzzle. However, the stability of Iraq goes well beyond a reduction in day-to-day violence.
"Winning in Iraq" involves Iraqis establishing a functioning government, representative of its people and committed to reliably providing them basic services. It involves building relationships with neighboring countries, who see Iraq as a sovereign partner rather than a prize to be won or exploited. And, lastly, it involves the US leaving them with the ability to provide for their own defense, from both internal and external threats.
As stated, our military plays a very small role in success, as so defined. They can neither be credited with "winning" this war should we be successful, nor "losing" it if we fail. Those accolades, for better or worse, lie strictly in the hands of Iraqis.