. . .As I read the facts, we don't have enough troops available and the Iraqi government isn't up to the job. Therefore, reason would suggest that if we are to attain victory (or success or whatever other euphemism people prefer these days for the vulgar, antiquated, arrogant, jingoistic, unrealistic, impolite, cowboy-like word "victory"), we need to replace the Iraqi government and as quickly as possible start increasing the size of our Army and Marines. . .
I continue to believe, as Mr. Blankley does, that victory is worth it, and necessary. As Mr. Blankley so rightly says, defeat in Iraq will have "shocking" consequences which don't bear thinking about.
More fundamentally, I think it is bad policy for a state to undertake a war, and resign it -- deliberately opt to lose it -- with resources unused, strategies untried; without playing every card. Perhaps we should not have begun this war. But that decision was made long ago, and the war is a fact, and we ought to win it, and argue about the causes and reasons later when it's won.
The concept of a limited liability war we can just abandon at will is monstrous. If the strategy is flawed, let it be changed; if more troops are needed, let us find them; if the Iranians want to intervene, then let us match them, escalation for escalation. But the country has made promises, and commitments, and paid too much in blood to simply walk away.