Curiously, semantically different from "fighting for victory"...

A new but strong theme has crept into your posts, TB: defeat, defined vaguely but predictably as anything short of perpetual occupation of Iraq... while a realistic, thoughtful appraisal of the entire adventure should have predicted just the outcome our forces have received at the hands of the insurgency and the sectarian violence.

No, excuse me: a spade is a spade, and Iraq is a civil war, with bystanders caught in the crossfire. That many of those bystanders are armed and/or armored only reduces their losses somewhat.

Oh, look at that: many realistic thoughtful people did predict that very thing, while some folks (including at least one here) promoted images reminiscent of the Liberation of France in 1944. "Sgt. Rock", indeed...

You recently characterized America's withdrawal from Vietnam as "surrender". My historical perspective tends to think of surrender as a formalized matter, such as occurred in Tokyo Bay in August 1945. However, I can understand your use of the word in terms of "surrender to the inevitable". Perhaps it's time to do just that.

Continuation of the current programs of policing (and we are doing such a good job; witness the kidnappings this week!) and infrastructure repair (all but halted in a few places, due to the kidnappings and murders) will not only require a prolonged occupation but at a troop strength higher than the American public will tolerate. Not only the Democrats, TB: the country. They voted; "stay the course" lost.

A similar decision by the British Parliament -- to cease pursuing victory in an unpopular war on unfamiliar soil, against a determined insurgency -- permitted a Revolution to succeed. I hold no such hope for Iraq (though, perhaps, for Kurdistan), but it is plainly inevitable that "victory" is not a viable option. If defeat is the absence of victory, so be it.