It’s strange that you refuse to declare victory but are comfortable with troop withdrawals. Usually troops are removed from a battlefield after victory or defeat, and I assume you don’t think we lost the war in Iraq. Or have you changed your mind, now that word has leaked about the Bush administration’s likely acceptance of a timetable for withdrawal?

I’d say we’re winning rather than we have won. Really the biggest hesitation I have isn’t the lack of imprimitur of President Bush, but the emotional anxiety of the whole subject.

Regardless of what we call it, I expect that we’ll draw down some more troops later this year, but not eliminate our presence there for a while, under either President McCain or President Obama.

There’s a few things that need to be kept straight here. First of all, the idea that Sadr has legitimacy among the Shia, whereas the official Iraqi gov’t is an American puppet state has at best a tenuous relationship with reality. In fact the WSJ just yesterday I think had a frontpager about Sadr and the fact that he’s folding his hand. Like what you usually see when you scratch a terror group, you get a bunch of gangsters. And in Sadr’s case, gangsters that serve no one’s purpose except Iran.

As far as the Kurds go, the Turks won’t allow Kurdistan as a sovereign nation.

I would prefer we make Kurdistan an autonomous province of Iraq. Put the Middle East version of Ramstein AFB there. Represent to the Turks that we’ll help end terrorism by the PKK. Defeat Iranian influence over the Shia part of Iraq, and as the violence continues to abate, draw down the American forces there.

I’m sure there’s problems with my idea too, but in any case the most important thing to bear in mind is that even though we might the most powerful actor in the theater, we are only one actor. And there are limits to what we can do.

I accept that the progress over the last five years has been less than what we hoped but I don’t think it has much to do with your factors since they have only recently materialized.

The level of violence in Iraq has obviously decreased, and you said we’ve achieved a lot.

Apparently you and Bush think a decent level of stability has been reached so that troop numbers can be decreased.

So by your own logic, you should declare victory.

If you cannot bring yourself to do this, then I want to know what it will take for you to think we have acieved victory in Iraq? Does Bush have to say it to make it so?

I do not, however, appreciate the imputation that those opposed to the war are in some way less “responsible” than the war’s supporters, given that the tragedy of the last five years was foreseen by millions of people. I have rather a lot to say about this, but will refrain in the interest of civility. Plus, I don’t see how such an argument gets us anywhere, however, so perhaps we should agree to disagree.

Given your preference for an abatement of violence and a stable government, what is wrong with the following outcome:

1. A partitioning of northern Iraq to create Kurdistan or some similar entity

2. Installing Muqtada al-Sadr as the head of an officially Shia polity in Iraq, given his popular support, his ability to provide security to his people, and the ability of affiliated groups to provide social services. We could condition the receipt of financial aid and weapons on a ceasefire with Sunni guerrilla groups

3. With a federated Iraq, provide financial support to various Sunni groups conditioned on honoring a ceasefire with the Shia-led central government.

Given that much of our involvement in Iraq consists of supporting a puppet government hated by nationalists of all three groups, why can’t we simply pull down that tent pole and leave?

Any solution to this problem has to somehow deal with the fact that the Kurds want independence, the Shia want to run the country free from outside interference, and the Sunni want safety from reprisals. It’s easy enough to reconcile them in the short term, but they are pretty much at cross-purposes on any longer time frame. Can you find a different way to reconcile those interests?

If one accepts the statement that progress over the last 5 years has been less than all we could hope for, one explanation might be that reconciliation between those three sets of opposed interests is not very closely connected to adjustments in American troop levels.

I suspect the end-game in Iraq does not differ materially from the points outlined above. If so, it seems this could be achieved in a very quick time-frame, after which an American presence would become superfluous.

I think so. You never know for sure, of course, but people get used to living their lives 1. without fearing for their immediate personal safety, 2. without being able to exact violent revenge on their enemies.

The point being is that the US can draw down their troop levels without bringing them all the way to zero. When we bear in mind the question of what has to be done to make this deployment a success, the answers are clearer than simply trying to defend a difference of opinion from five years ago.

The level of violence has decreased and you said we’ve achieved a lot, so then how much more must it decrease until you think victory can be declared? Can American troops leave if bombings still happen? How low do the monthly American and Iraqi body counts have to go? Or does the Iraqi body count even matter?

You bring up a very important question: How stable is the current ebb of violence in Iraq? According to Bush and McCain, the surge has been successful. If Bush has announced troop withdrawals and shortened the tour of duty to 12 months, and Bush’s troop movements have always been taken with ultimate victory in mind, then Bush must think the current ebb of violence is fairly stable, right? Otherwise Bush would keep troop levels the same in order to keep the peace, no?

As far as taking victory “on faith”, I don’t think that’s plausible considering the state of the war right now.

It is a fact and a part of reality that the United States overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein over five years ago. There are many people who opposed the war then or at some point since. But to the extent that they want to speak in the name of the United States they’re as responsible for the war as anybody else.

Ie, people want to talk about “George Bush’s war” as if we could bring the troops home for the sake of punishing President Bush while declaiming any responsibility for negative consequences to America that would ensue.

Really, I try hard to avoid the kneejerk dismissal of antiwar types as rank idiots but this doesn’t help.

1. “Violence abates and what’s left are the various tribes more or less living in a stable peace.”

2. The subsequent governing regime in Iraq is somewhere “on a continuum between an American puppet state and democratically legitimate sovereign government…”

Given #1, of course some outcomes wrt #2 are preferable to others and I can’t see why you are arguing that this or that is the best that we can hope for, let alone imputing such an argument to me.

The various antiwar factions have never even bothered to consider [ultimate victory].

By your own admission, we will have achieved the “ultimate victory” — that is, the very best we could ever theoretically hope for — when there’s a sovereign state in Iraq capable of meeting its citizens’ security needs (and presumably their other needs most of the time.) As you state, it doesn’t matter whether the regime is an American puppet or democratic (i.e., intensely opposed to the United States’ occupation and other regional interests).

If ultimate victory is stability and security without regard to America’s wishes — then the very best we could hope for was already achieved on March 18, 2003, under Saddam Hussein. By yourif “ultimate victory” is a mirage, then different goals should take precedence. You’re taking “ultimate victory” on faith, destroying two nations in the process and killing hundreds of thousands of people. I kind of think the burden of proof should be on you, especially after 5+ years of this.

(3) You seem to imply that the anti-war folks somehow suffer a dearth of patriotism. The anti-war people simply suffer a lack of confidence in the wisdom of this enterprise, which blithe assertions about “ultimate victory” do nothing to allay.

Well, we’ve achieved a lot. The question is, how stable is the current ebb of violence in Iraq? The answer to that question looks a lot different now than it did a year ago. IIRC, President Bush recently announced new troop withdrawals, but that’s mostly flown under radar. In any case, President Bush’s troop movements have always been taken with ultimate victory in mind. The various antiwar factions have never even bothered to consider it, AFAIK.

Along with never defining victory, invasion and occupation supporters have strenuously avoided any discussion of the costs of war. Remember, back at the beginning, Gen. Shinseki and Lawrence Lindsey were drummed out of the government for failing to lie about how many troops and how much money, respectively, were necessary to achieve anything victory-esque in Iraq.

So, in lieu of any discussion of costs and benefits, occupation supporters make content-free, but somewhat emotionally powerful, arguments about “surrender” and “victory.”

That’s because they regard world affairs like an eight-year-old watches GI Joe.

(Or like Joe Lieberman watches war movies).