So now we're supposed to say, 'it didn't turn out that well, I guess it was all a mistake'? Hard for me to say, since I don't feel that way in the slightest.

On the positives:

Libya's WMD, democratic voting in Lebanon, 'Palestine', exposing UN corruption, somewhat of a unified stand against Iran, the removal of Saddam, and giving the Iraqi people the choice to stand up for themselves.

Spinning the Prosepctive Bloodbath

Gregory Djerejian responds to your article.

Given that the civil war in Iraq, if it occurs, likely would not have occured had we left Saddam in power, to say that it "could not have been prevented" is a bit glib. Nor is it entirely clear how the ME has been changed for the positve. All that depends on success in Iraq, which we have always defined as a unitary state with secular, democratic government.

I am not as willing to accept defeat. If something looks like failure, it's time to change strategy or re-evaluate the goals. You don't say 'better luck next time' or tuck your tail between your legs and go home (although, the self serving left would love exactly that).

War isn't funny or amusing. The fact that my countrymen eagerly sit on the edge of their seats waiting for failure is appalling.

Again, look in the mirror and ask why you want us to fail so badly. I think there is a fundamental difference in the definition of failure as well. Even with a civil war in Iraq (if it occurs, could not have been prevented) removing Saddam, killing terrorirsts, and forever changing the ME for the positive WAS ALL WORTH IT.

The comments here seem to me to send a single clear message. The warriors have played out their hand, and have nothing more of use to offer to the discussion. I imagine that it will be some time before the American people listen again, with such reverential respect, to the advice of militaristic pundits.

Perhaps he could use that same logic to explain the behavior of democrats, as he describes them in his second paragraph.
Dems don't accept "losing" two elections, because, well, y'know, its a defining characteristic of Americans in general that we just dont intend to lose. We can have setbacks. We can learn from past mistakes. We can adapt and change. But we never lose. Period.

BUSHWA !

Look it up - it applies to the basic premise of the biwah comment ! (And dates back to the first half of the 20th century (or possibly earlier))

Look here !

In the last week, as a response to both Fukuyama's piece and to the events in Iraq, many people seem to have busied themselves readjusting their sights on the real possibilities in Iraq. Lingering hopes that the insurgency (a) is a definable bloc and (b) will destroy itself with its violent ambitions have been put, for the most part, in their place.

I enjoyed Stephen Green's posting, and his capsule history of the Crusades is particularly intriguing. But its optimism concerning the ultimate fruits of civil war (rejection of violence and tyranny) fits along a trend of explanatory backfilling each time the empty promises, false predictions, and manichaean rhetoric of the administration wither away under the weight of poltical realities in Iraq.

Your piece is more realistic to roughly the same degree that it was less optimistic. You support the statement that in the event of civil war, we have nothing to gain by staying. The intensity of the domestic factions' involvement will be so high that our efforts will at best be wasted. While this may be especially true if civil war breqks out, it seems that this has been the case from the start. We have always been half-hearted in our commitments, and inexplicably dependent on the notion that the foreign-funded insurgents (versus us) and the major ethnnic groups (versus each other) would be similarly restrained.

Barbara Conry's observation that

Intervening powers are at a disadvantage because their stake in the outcome is usually far smaller than that of the primary combatants

has been true from the beginning. How is it really changed by Iraq's crossing the threshold into civil war at some point in the future? We should have heeded this political truism from the start. As a matter of organic political will, we were not invested enough, and overinvested in the appeal of an easy win. We will probably stick around long enough to find out if our hope of Iraq autonomy is indeed unfounded.

Failing to acknowledge the bleeding (our own, as well as that of the Iraqi populace) has too long prevented us from taking the necessary step to stem it - disengagement.

So long as the fight remains one of the Coalition and the forces of Iraqi democracy on one side and jihadist terrorists and the forces of instability on the other, the United States has a stake in the outcome and even a duty to remain engaged. If, however, it devolves into an Iraqi factional conflict over the internal control of the country, the cause is lost and the United States must leave.

James, seeing as we have people right here in America who cannot bring themselves to allow votes to be counted if it might result in the defeat of their party leader, I do not see how you could ever be confident that whatever your definition of 'democracy' is it would be anything like what an Iraqi might define it as.

What would “failure” look like in our Iraqi adventure?

The question isn't so much what the conservative definition of failure is. The real question is, "Does it differ significantly from the liberal definition of victory?"

So long as the fight remains one of the Coalition and the forces of Iraqi democracy on one side and jihadist terrorists and the forces of instability on the other, the United States has a stake in the outcome and even a duty to remain engaged. If, however, it devolves into an Iraqi factional conflict over the internal control of the country, the cause is lost and the United States must leave.

Thanks, JJ. I'm afraid my response was conditioned by having seen the "civil war, not so bad" argument being made, by people considerably less smart than OTB posters. So I'm sorry if I misdirected my fire there. Hope we can all agree that "civil war" = "failure."

LJD's Anderson-bashing, in addition to its usual value, is also unintentionally (?) amusing: we don't have criteria for failure because we intend to succeed?

What kind of trippy flower-child EST graduates do we have running the country, exactly?