I'm fine with "winning in Iraq is to withdraw all American forces as rapidly as possible, which means within 12-18 months. "

Or continue the surge for about 6 months, then draw down- though maybe the surge only needs 4 months or maybe 8 months. Though withdrawing all forces from Iraq, doesn't necessarily mean all forces from region and maybe say, up to 20,000 could left in Iraq for few years. One could have say up 50,000 in region- all/most could be in Kuwait or less in Kuwait and some elsewhere. And in a few years, one have max of 30,000 in region. Though it may be possible to have little or no forces in Iraq or Kuwait within 18 months and if politically doable, this would be preferable.

We will see the report in Sept. One possible indication from report may lead to conclusion we need even more troops in Iraq [a bigger surge]. Or it's possible the report will indicate that we are already at point to begin drawing down the force levels. If the conclusion of report is we need to maintain forces at present level for 2+ years, then I think that conclusion is unacceptable [I don't think it's politically realistic- and indicates a profound inability to train Iraqi security forces].
It seems to me that our exit strategy from the beginning was training Iraqi security forces so we could leave. Winning in Iraq means leaving Iraq. If Iraq becomes S Korea in terms of needing security forces for decades- then that is losing the war. Needing to keep security forces in Kuwait [30,000+] for decades is also losing.
But we may need to keep security forces in Afghanistan for decades.