By most indicators, the war in Iraq is going much better. For instance, just 21 troops died in May. Depending on who is counting, this is the lowest number of American military deaths since the war began more than five years ago. I am against the war. I think it is bad for America. But I cheer the improvement. Every American should want to win this war. That said, I am unclear what this week's standard for winning is. Ridding Iraq of non-existent WMDs? Punishing Iraq for its non-role in 9/11? Launching a democracy in a soil that has never grown it? It is the shifting rationales for why we are in Iraq, and the lack of a definitive criterion for victory, that makes it hard to see even short-term improvements as evidence of long-term transformation. A strategy that relies on the controllable, i.e., the military's ability to impose their might, rather than one that relies on the uncontrollable, i.e., the ability of Iraqis to transform themselves into pluralistic democrats that they have never been, seems a formula better suited for success.

Put another way, consider the Powell Doctrine, and ask yourself if any of that wise general's counsel is now heeded by the war managers:

1. "Is a vital national security interest threatened?"
2. "Do we have a clear attainable objective?"
3. "Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?"
4. "Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?"
5. "Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?"
6. "Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?"
7. "Is the action supported by the American people?"
8. "Do we have genuine broad international support?"

I believe the reasoning behind the presidents decision to go to war in Iraq is twofold. 1: It is one country in that region that has a reasonably educated and non-overwelmingly large population and is therefor ripe for democratic reform. Thus having the potential to change the political dynamics of the region, resulting in greater American security economically and in terms of terrorism. 2: Is/was Saddams support for groups of terrorists working (blowing up?) to destabilize the region. I can hardly imagine a riskier venture with greater potential for unintended consequences, but consider the possibilities of what may result if the Iraqis succeed and the citizens of neighboring nations look to Iraq and ask: "Why not me too?" It may take a generation or more, but if it works, aren't we all better off?

Tim writes: "consider the possibilities of what may result if the Iraqis succeed and the citizens of neighboring nations look to Iraq and ask: "Why not me too?" It may take a generation or more, but if it works, aren't we all better off?"

This to me is the only possible silver lining of this whole misadventure, even though it is the one most rooted in neo-con ideology: that we can centrally-plan democratic and capitalistic reforms abroad.

Despite the inherent absurdity of that notion, it must be admitted as a glorious hope. The trouble is, it rests on a huge IF.

Further, the question must be asked: Could the might of peaceful example - rather than the barrel of a heavily gun - better accomplish this noble end? It certainly did all across the western hemisphere and much of the rest of the world in the 19th century.

Re: your last question....

Uh...Sorry but that doesn't work with Arabs.

I assume you are addressing me, Homer?

That is really a racist comment. Are they somehow less human? Are they exempt from being treated the way we Christ exhorts us to treat all our neighbors?

I trust you didn't intend your comment that way.

Perhaps you only mean it for Muslims? My retort would still apply (they are still our neighbors and are just as human as you and I). But further, how then would you explain Jordan, and Lebanon, and Egypt - for each of them at least up until about 30 years ago? And even huge swaths of the Iranian population. Many of these places have grown highly westernized. And until recent decades, their populations were largely pro-American; they looked up to us very much, seeking to emulate those things that have made us so successful: peace and freedom. Western travelers up until a few decades could travel the Middle East largely unmolested and without fear for their safety. These nations were eager to trade with us and considered it an honor to play host to our people.

After decades of meddling in their affairs, much has changed. Blowback. A half century ago - heck, even a couple decades ago - radicals had a hard time attracting recruits. But the more we bomb the Middle East, the more we participate in the overthrow of their leaders, the more we alternatively threaten and bribe to effect their internal affairs, the easier recruitment has become for the radicals, and the most hostile the environment has become to the western traveler.

To expand on my comments, and as a way to clarify any confusion: What I am NOT saying here is that all cultures are equally receptive to "westernizing" and embracing economic and political freedom.

The fact is that I agree with Dan here: It is nonsensical to try to force our voluntary model of society on anyone. And it is extra folly to try to do so in a culture that has none of the institutions and presuppositions that proved such fertile ground to allow democratic capitalism and republican democracy to take root and flourish here. That ground over there is fallow, and you can't force a plant to grow in such bad soil.

But over time, soil can be improved, and the best way for that to happen is the way it happened over here: the peaceful spread of the Gospel, and the Golden Rule of peaceful commerce and persuasion governing human interaction. This is what is meant by the "light on the hill" imagery.

And this is what was behind the near unanimous non-interventionist foreign policy of our Founding Fathers, including that of Washington (see his Farewell Address) and Jefferson.

Perhaps none of the first generations of Americans enunciated this better than John Quincy Adams, who said:

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

Do take time to read Adams's full speech. It really should be memorized by all school children and every immigrant to our great land.

any bombs going off here at home? hell its been so long 911 is a distant memory. just think, say we didnt invade iraq, what would sodom be doing now?

Saddam never dropped a bomb b/4, so your question doesn't compute.

And why is it that pro-war types endlessly engage in wild speculation about "what-ifs" but consistently fail to engage with arguments presented? The "better over there than here" cliche is quite worn out by now.

TALLYBUMS DIDNT BOMB US, BUT U PACIPUSSIES SEEM TO THINK THAT WAR IN AFGANISTAN IS THE RIGHT,GOOD OR WHAT EVER WAR. TO ME THERE THE SAME. KILLING RADICAL RAGHEADS.

That's right, it has nothing to do with justice for you, just hatred.

I agreed with decision to pursue Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Justice demanded it. But justice had nothing to do with going into Iraq. And it has nothing to do with how far the Bush Administration has gone beyond its authorization in Afghanistan, either.

But blind hatred and bigotry is clearly the motivation of more than a few neo-con, like as you and Mr. Boggs. Have you no shame?

1. I think it's hard to argue that Iraq was not an area where our vital national security interests where not threatened. The Persian Gulf and Israel? Both of which were threatened not only by Saddam but also by the weakness of his government that would most likely have been toppled by the Iranians eventually.

2. The clear attainable objective was to get rid of Saddam and the Batthists and replace them with a friendly stable government (hopefully democratic). WMD's, support for terrorism were arguments made to support this goal.

3. The risks were/are enormous. Bush was a river boat gambler IMHO. But doing nothing (the UN option) had its own risks. Can you imagine trying to maintain isolation of Saddam with $125 barrel oil? Or Saddam and the current wackos in Iran at a joint press conference condemning the US and Israel?

4. yes and no ( its is always possible to do nothing )

5. Either you win or you lose (big big gamble, which is why Bush Senior and Powell folded in 1991.)

6. You can never do that(unknown unknowns are always present).

7. America kinda likes winners (love/envy), but they hate losers. Just ask Truman or Johnson.

8. Define broad.

I reserve the right to judge the success or failure of the war every decade until I die. People will be judging it for hundreds of years. Still to early to make a definitive judgement.

Powell a wise general?

He opposed the first Iraq conflict that drove Saddam out of Kuwait. His kind of wisdom would have allowed Saddam to stay.

Call it what you want, but that's not wisdom.

Powell was right to oppose the first Gulf War, it was an unjust action on our part and we had no business in that conflict or region, first by provoking the invasion and then by attacking Saddam for it. It was wisdom actually Danboy.

Frankly I', amused by the facile reasoning displayed here. Saddam never bombed us-duh, neither did the Nazis nor the Russians. Does anyone think they meant us well?

What was the measure of winning in Iraq. Unhappily people who ask this question are unlikely to like the response-to destroy the enemy regime and lay waste to its industry and culture so any option seems better than continuing its hostile course of action. Somehow I doubt the hand wringing so much in evidence here was on the minds of the people who destroyed Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Does anyone believe we could have used a more peaceful means to have dealt with these two opponents.

To quote Powell is about as useful as using the Jimmy Carter doctrine. Powell never had combat experience, remains the prime example of what went wrong in the military and how the officer corps became a bunch of ticket punchers rather than leaders. His direction of the first Gulf War lead to the second. To praise Powell as a leader is to praise the leaders of the Allies who forged the WWI peace which gave us not only WWII but the cold war, national socialism, and fascism as well.

Finally wars aren't the worst end result we can anticipate, far worse are being forced into wars at a time, place, and conditions not of our choice resulting as the French achieved with peace in the forties, with free military parades and the memorization of Horst Wessel Lied.

The quickest way to achieve peace is to surrender or to maintain it to slip into slavery. Something that those who have never witnessed such degration or fought to prevent it easily hoist up as viable options.

Nazi Germany declared war on America, Thomas.

Japan bombed us. Germany declared war on us. Why do you find the situation of WWII comparable? A better ana!ogy to the U.S. invading Iraq after 9/11 would be if we had invaded Mongolia after Pearl Harbor. In other words, Iraq made no sense in relation to 9/11 as it had nothing to do with it and represented the type of secular regime the jihadists wish to anhilate. If lack of combat experience invalidates Colin Powell as a voice of wisdom on military matters, what is your opinion of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleeza Rice running a war?

The important question to ask isn't whether things are "getting better in Iraq," but are we now closer to winning the Iraq war. Of course this question creates a question of its own: how do we define "winning?" The word is still waiting to leave the world of rhetorical politics and acquire some measure of objectivity. If we define "winning" as no troop deaths for 3 months, can we then withdraw from Iraq? Probably not. If the Sunnis begin to participate in the Maliki government, can we then leave Iraq? Probably not.

The problem with those who say we should stay until we "win" never actually specificy what conditions must be met before we can declare we've won? "Winning" is rhetorical, but strategically useless.

If we leave Iraq as a sovereign country, do we really believe that it will become an ally of the United States and a friend of Israel? Do we really believe that Iran will leave it alone?

Since there is no definition of "winning," it makes little sense to say that things are improving in Iraq because we are no more closer to leaving than we were when fatalities were high.

Also, how do we know what will happen to Iraq one, two, or three years after we leave? We have no way of prediciting what Iraq will be like without U.S. involvement, so we'll never know when it's right to leave or not.

The best solution is just to leave immediately, and then try and live with whatever consequences arise.