Endgame Conservatives
"A useful battle among conservatives began last week when National Review's Rich Lowry fired a salvo at those he calls "the 'to hell with them' hawks." Lowry aims at the head of the conservatives who grow more skeptical of the president's strategy. Lowry accuses them of writing off the reform of Islam, of misunderstanding the lessons of Vietnam, and of failing to understand that our goal in this war is to win the hearts and minds of all Islam. Lowry has picked a good fight, and his challenge must be met because the neo-Wilsonians such as he are profoundly wrong about the nature of this war and how we must fight it to win in the long haul. This is not an argument over who is braver or a more stalwart supporter of the president. It's about who understands this war, what it will take for us to win, and when we will know if and when we have. Who can most accurately define victory and thus chart a path to it? It is not Lowry and the Bush-Wilsonians who believe victory in this war can only be achieved by democratizing the Middle East.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9555
And:
"We are impatient with Mr. Bush's neo-Wilsonianism because it allows the enemy and its apologists to control the pace and direction of the war. We are unwilling to allow the prosecution of this war against the terrorist nations to be delayed for however long it takes for Iraqis to sort themselves out. "

I looked for Lowry's article but didn't see it- mainly I wanted to know how he was defining: "the 'to hell with them' hawks". Anyhow I don't feel comfortable this Endgame Conservative direction, but I do think we should focus on "Who can most accurately define victory and thus chart a path to it?"

It seems to me that these "Endgame Conservatives" might be too hot headed and in too much of a hurry. The only justification I can see for war with Syria or Iran is if we are provoked. It is true that terrorists are getting support from the territories of Syria and Iran- and it seems that there could be state involvement to a greater or lessor degree. But the terrorists are also coming in through Jordan- and Jordan is definitely an ally and, as way of weighing this, is doing more than we could reasonable expect from either Syria and Iran. Or just look at Mexico- how much blame can we place on the power of the State of Mexico regards to our border problems? It seems to me that Iraq's border problems is going to have to be handled diplomatically by the Iraq government working with Syria, Iran, and other countries. It also seems to me that the diplomatic solutions in this regard are not exhausted yet, and we could expect much improvement in this area through diplomacy.
The other issues in regard to Iran and Syria, is Iran development of nuclear weapon and for Syria it's possible miltary [covert or overt] interference with Lebanon [or even Israel]. In short, there isn't a strong even case for war against Syria or Iran at this time, and it's possible there will not be a case within next 5 or 10 years or ever.
It seems to me that Sudan is currently a much stronger case for using US miltary power than any other country at this time. But also it seems that the Bush presidency is going to be entering the lame duck period and starting any new use of miltary power at this time would be unwise. Bombing Iranian nuclear site should probably be the only real miltary card that Bush could decide to do if negoiations fail to get a result of stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Bush should devoting a significant amount of money towards determining where the Iranian are in making a nuclear weapon and determining what targets should be hit to set back this weapon program if this is needed. This is high priority which could costs billions dollars and could be spent using space assets, spy planes, and "normal" spying methods.

So finally getting to the point: defining victory as far as GWOT
Greater energy dependent for US.
Iraq improving it's ability to independently handle it's own security.
Iraq becoming a powerful ally in fighting terrorism.
Iraq joining NATO.
Pakistan and India getting more peaceful and prosperous relations.
Pakistan gaining enough security of it's own country- that it can transition back to a democracy.
Afghanistan getting to point of growing and export food and other farm products, so as to replace the poppy crops.
Handle diseases in Africa and getting increase in food/farm production and exporting.
Complete the "Roadmap"
Getting Turkey as member of EU.
Stamp out education that teaches children that America is evil force in the world.
Get UN to establish as a goal that all countries in the world become democratic, if this is not possible start new international organization that is similar to UN but members [particularly permanent member/security council type members] be democratic countries.
Oh, also internationally define Terrorism and establish legal regime deals with terrorism.