we will leave, it's just a mattter of when...my guess is well before the 2008 election, there's no way the republicans are going into 2008 with this millstone around their necks.

with huge regional implications as well.

That's the key phrase, there. They will do whatever it takes to keep Iran from assuming the regional prominence it has historically enjoyed, which likely means that even if an Iraqi police state is created to our liking, we'll probably still have a permanent garrison there, just to keep Iran "contained." Barring a serious change of foreign and domestic policy, I can't see us leaving the region at all.

I am an engineer. When I start a project, I define what the exact goals are, clearly defined, so I know when I'm done. This is to protect both myself and my management, who have to report up the chain.

The administration has claimed the Democrats vote against victory. My question: What, exactly, without weasel words, IS victory?

"A working democracy" is often bruited about. What, precisely, is a working democracy in this context? A popularly elected Shia theocracy? A puppet government that is strong enough to prevail against the majority of citizens? Saddam comes to mind...

Would they settle for client energy companies owning most of Iraq's mineral rights?

Would it be ok if downtown Baghdad was as peaceful as the average urban barrio/ghetto?

What exactly are the measurable metrics for victory? Nobody will say. If the administration would clearly define these metrics, I would be willing to attempt to evaluate the probability of success. If they will not define them, it is clear that the war is as transient as a temporary rate increase from your public utility company. If there is no way to measure victory, all the talk about defeat and surrender is as much bullshit as talking about winning.

You can not win if you can not define the win.

"Long War"? Then I guess we need a draft, don't we? For once, I'd love to hear an honest discussion about what this country is willing to sacrifice. Petraeus knows he needs about three times as many troops as he has at his disposal. He's being a good soldier, but it is disgraceful that he should have to give as mealy-mouthed an answer as the one quoted here. It's one more example of Bush touching something and it turning into sh*t, which is the story of his miserable life. We've been in the Mesopotamian cesspool for four years -- about three years and nine months longer than we were told to expect. Nobody would have signed off on this enterprise if Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rice had an honest bone in their bodies. Well-informed people like Gen. Shinseki had the cost pegged correctly, and were hooted down for their trouble. Perhaps Bush will promote Petraeus to five-star rank, the way Hitler made Paulus a Field Marshal when it had become apparent that chances for German victory at Stalingrad were nil. I wouldn't rule it out.

He had the courage to say the honest truth. Kudos to Petaeus. If the US wants to establish a democratic United States client state in Iraq, this is a fifteen year commitment. You have to raise a whole generation trained to like America to accomplish the goal of a democratic Iraq that likes us. Petraeus had the balls to come out and say our present plan of establishing a functioning democracy will take much much longer than the American people anticipated.

Remember that the neocons envisioned putting Chalabi in power as a dictator to replace Sadam. That is why the war planners thought this war would be fast, we would throw in Chalabi, change the military over to a Shia run group, wham bam, oppression system would be in place and we could start siphoning oil. Chalabi's brother was outed as the guy who gave the USA forged documents showing that Sadam had WMDs. When that went public the neocon war planners had to change course and go for a democracy.

Chalabi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi

In response to the WMD controversy, Chalabi told London's Daily Telegraph in February 2004, "We are heroes in error. As far as we're concerned, we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat." [7]

About as long as the war in Viet Nam? The US was winning that one too until the evacuation of the embassy in what used to be Saigon, or even the Korean war which is still only in an armistice situation?

see a light at the end of this tunnel?

sorry for the regurgitation of another Vietnamism ('light at the end of the tunnel', 'winning their hearts and minds') but that is happens why I (a 55 year old man) start seeing the same stupid excuses that were used to explain away the goof-ups of Vietnam, being recycled for use in Afghanistan and Iraq

if this war is still raging on January 21, 2009, I propose that e-President George W. Bush and ex-Vice President Dick Cheney be outfitted in Army fatigues (made, like everything else, in China), be equipped with M-16s and then sent to do a 'Tour of Duty' in Iraq for a couple of years; Cheney's heart condition should not be a problem: if he can gun down a couple hundred quail in a single afternoon, he ought to be able to gun down 10 to 20 Iraqi a day

Maintained troops in Iraq for 37 years, previously. It still wound up as a flaming abattoir lead by one cannibal king after another. I think we can conclude that that's how it will always wind up.

Blame Petraeus? No, but what he is saying is still the same kind of solemn head nodding rhetoric that echoes Bush-speak, but when it comes to action, their plans (and I usethat term loosely) does not reflect the complexity of the situation.

After he realized that it was not going to be as easy as he thought, Bush, also, uses much of the "long hard fight" language, simulating a request for actual sacrifice.

"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail"

Somebody famous said this. I think it sums up the relentless myopia that is the Bush world view