Can anyone tell me???

So this week there’s been a lot of conversation about the administration’s new plans for Iraq. A “surge” is what they call it. According to Condi, this isn’t an “escalation” it’s an “augmentation” of our effort…what beautiful word play. 20,000 more troops and a few billion more dollars to achieve “victory in Iraq,” but it’s not an escalation because our goals remain the same. Now…this line of bs is enough to make my blood boil in and of itself, but my real question is this: What does the phrase “victory in Iraq” mean? I know the party line, victory is achieved when Iraq can govern and defend itself. But who really believes this can happen at this point…or at any point in the next 10 year or so? We’ve created a perpetual battleground. Our foes will continue to funnel money and bodies into Iraq so long as we maintain a presence there, but if we leave, the country, and possibly the region, completely goes to shit. So, again, what does victory look like? Is it a matter of cutting our losses, or is there something more to be had? I won’t pretend to know the answers, I just feel the need to ask the questions. The one thing I do believe, we can’t do it alone, and the only ones who hold enough of a stake in the region to make a real difference…well, we’re not talking to them right now.