So how do we know when we've won in Iraq?

[Telly Savalas]

The "insurgency" signs Articles of Surrender?

The suicide bombings stop? Does anyone actually expect this will happen while U.S. forces are still there?

The Iraqi forces are well enough trained to defend the government? If this is it, can anyone give a compelling reason why this should take more than a few months? After all, U.S. Army basic training is only 8 weeks, isn't it?

The situation is stabilized? Is there a stability-o-meter sitting in a State Department warehouse somewhere that will give us an accurate reading as to when it's safe to remove U.S. forces? (This of course makes the huge assumption that U.S. forces aren't a major source of instability.)

Call me a left-wing extremist for it, but I believe that any policy which requires hundreds of billions of dollars in funding ought to have some well defined metrics in place such that we can gauge whether or not the policy is succeeding. This is all the more true when lives are being lost.

[MercutioATC]

1. When we need to invade someplace else (like Iran).

We'll be told that the Iraqi government is now capable of taking care of itself (whether that's the case or not) so we can move men to the next invasion.

[KansDem]

2. Bush will tell us "Mission Accomplished"

...again.

[Just Me]

3. Unless you consider perpetual instability, violence and corruption a win,.

,...we will NEVER win in Iraq. Period.

[Squatch]

4. NYC ticker tape parade

[jokerman93]

5. Easily done

The MSM will stop reporting on events in Iraq. George Bush will declare victory and we'll be onto the next ad campaign for America's new "New War" in Bushco's endless war on terror for profit.

[AValdoux]

6. The $64,000 question

That's the important question. The reason it isn't "knowable" is either they don't have an answer or they don't want us to know the real answer. Either they are stupid & incompetent or diabolically evil. Either option means we are screwed unless people wake up.


AValdoux

[Telly Savalas]

9. It's not just "them" though.

A lot of people here are Pottery Barners, and the guy who should have been the president was always saying "we have to get it right". But I've never heard a Democrat clearly lay out what it means to "get it right". The question in the original post isn't entirely a rhetorical one. A lot of Democrats, including some of our biggest names, may criticize Bush but still claim we need to "win the war". The onus is on them then to clearly define what conditions constitute victory.

[ihaveaquestion]

7. Victory!

from Mark Fiore - http://www.markfiore.com/animation/victory.html

[spanone]

8. When oil is $3,000 a barrel and Mobile/Exxon owns it all.

[Telly Savalas]

10. Kick for the night crowd.

Many potential candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination (Clinton, Biden, Kerry) believe we need to stay in Iraq until we win. These people have a lot of loyal supporters here (well, maybe not Biden). Can someone tell me what Kerry or Clinton considers to be victory?

Without clearly defined obtainable goals, the plan is still to dick around in Iraq indefinitely, even if it's Democratic president doing it more efficiently. Unacceptable.

[Telly Savalas]

11. What's a man gotta do to get an answer around here?

Or am I simply to assume that those who think we should stay in Iraq don't have a definition of victory that is concrete and obtainable?

[Autonomy]

12. It's a good question

All sarcasm aside, there is no realistic attainable objective. We lost the war before it began.