This is the problem inherent here...we may never know when we've "won":
"As uplifting as the memory of the aftermath of the Second World War may be, [Bush's] analogy may be premature. In 1945, the Allied victory was total, the surrender of Germany and Japan unequivocal, the war decisively won. In 2003, the destruction of Saddam's regime will be an incremental victory, like the liberation of Paris on the way to Berlin. Nor are the repercussions of even a successful invasion guaranteed to be uniformly favorable. Just as America's defeat in Vietnam did not precipitate defeat in the struggle against Soviet Communism, victory in Iraq will not necessarily precipitate victory in the struggle against terror, or insure the proliferation of peace in the Middle East.
...
The President's latest musings on postware Iraq suggest that he understands it will not be enough to win the war militarily. It is the peace that will measure America's succes or failure in Iraq, and, more broadly, set its reputation for good or ill as the imperial global power. This is why many of those who oppose the war abroad are made as uneasy by the prospect of an American triumph as by the possibility that war in Iraq will unleash greater disorder and catastrophe."
From The New Yorker, March 10th. I couldn't find it online. Spells it out pretty well...
"As uplifting as the memory of the aftermath of the Second World War may be, [Bush's] analogy may be premature. In 1945, the Allied victory was total, the surrender of Germany and Japan unequivocal, the war decisively won. In 2003, the destruction of Saddam's regime will be an incremental victory, like the liberation of Paris on the way to Berlin. Nor are the repercussions of even a successful invasion guaranteed to be uniformly favorable. Just as America's defeat in Vietnam did not precipitate defeat in the struggle against Soviet Communism, victory in Iraq will not necessarily precipitate victory in the struggle against terror, or insure the proliferation of peace in the Middle East.
...
The President's latest musings on postware Iraq suggest that he understands it will not be enough to win the war militarily. It is the peace that will measure America's succes or failure in Iraq, and, more broadly, set its reputation for good or ill as the imperial global power. This is why many of those who oppose the war abroad are made as uneasy by the prospect of an American triumph as by the possibility that war in Iraq will unleash greater disorder and catastrophe."
From The New Yorker, March 10th. I couldn't find it online. Spells it out pretty well...
