Perhaps it is an American perspective here but the basic defintion of "winning" in Iraq has always been to effect a regime change and allow the establishment of a soverign democratic form of government by the Iraqi people.
I don't beleive that has changed.
The devil has been in the details.
Don't misunderstand what I was suggesting. I do not advocate the motivation for "winning" being a "face saving" effort.
The war in Vietnam was run by politicians who set far too many limitations on the way we fought the war and when the war dragged out due to their incompetence, they got weak kneed and pulled the plug on the effort thereby rendering the valor and sacrifice of a generation of soldiers to political folly.
What I am saying and others here as well....if we are going to send our men and women into battle, we owe it to them to do so with the complete support and assistance of the nation. Our politicians....political leaders....and military leaders agreed to the war. The reasons they did so, really do not matter.
When the war turned into a long termed thing vice a short relatively painless affair like the first Gulf War, those who were so keen on the war then began to shirk their own responibility and began to criticize the people who are having to fight the war.
Being a Vietnam Vet with two combat tours, I know too well what it feels like to have the carpet jerked from under my feet. I just do not want that to happen again and yet another generation have to suffer the same wound.
The fact that geniune "victory" and preventing that happening to the folks fighting, dying, and being maimed in this affair is the same makes it doubly important in my view.
Does it matter why you do the right thing....so long as you do the right thing?