The WaPo “Is the Iraq War Lost?” round-up makes interesting reading. But I’m not sure we have a general consensus on what victory would look like, which leaves the discussion somewhat impoverished. Consider Nathaniel Fick’s “Yes, but” answer:
We can’t achieve our original objectives. But we still have compelling interests in denying a haven to al-Qaeda, averting genocide in Iraq and not breaking the Army and Marine ground forces. We have to draw down, but we cannot withdraw.
Our main “original objective” — taking out Saddam Hussein’s regime — has already been achieved. Perhaps Fick is saying we can’t leave behind a self-sustaining democracy. But I think the Kurds, at least, already have just that. If we keep a relatively small number of troops in Iraq indefinitely to enforce a partition and prevent a bloodbath, is that a loss? That is, more or less, how the Korean War ended (I know, it never “ended” in the technical sense, but you get my point). Did we lose Korea?
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.
The offer renews after one year at the regular price of $79.99.