We haven't lost in Iraq. We've won. So we should leave.

[Jim Lane]

There's certainly a very credible view that we've lost in Iraq, as voiced (to give one example of many) in the discussed in . One objective of the invasion was to establish a stable, democratic government in which the Iraqi people would freely vote in favor of the U.S. Republican Party platform. That hasn't happened, and won't.

From the practical perspective of mobilizing public opinion, though, I don't think that's our best argument. Millions of people would be reluctant to admit that the mighty USA had lost a war.

Instead, let's focus on other objectives:
* We sought to remove Saddam from power because he was a dangerous lunatic, a cruel dictator, a mass murderer, whatever. Mission accomplished.
* We sought to ensure that Iraq wouldn't collaborate with al-Qaeda in terrorist attacks in the U.S., but Bush has admitted that Iraq played no role in September 11. Mission accomplished.
* We sought to remove all Iraqi WMD's that might threaten us, Israel, or Iraq's neighbors. There are no such WMD's in Iraq now. Mission accomplished.

Iraq's internal governance is another matter. By ousting Saddam, we've opened the door for the Iraqis. Whether they walk through it is up to them. We can't force them. We've fulfilled our objectives and it was a smashing victory. There's nothing more for us to achieve there. So we should leave.

This line of argument sticks in the craw of those of us who see Bush as a dangerous lunatic. To get our troops the hell out of there ASAP, though, I think we should be pushing this viewpoint, instead of saying "We've lost."