i don't understand how, even after seven and one-half years, we can have articles discussing whether the u.s. "won" or "lost" the war in iraq without first trying to define what exactly the goal was. once you do that the win/loss determination is easier to puzzle out.
if the goal was to secure weapons of mass destruction to keep them from falling into the wrong hands, the u.s. lost the war. there were no WMDs. and, on the off chance there were, the u.s. doesn't know where they are.
if the goal was to overthrow saddam hussein, the u.s. won the war. except if that was the goal, then everything since march 20, 2003 has been largely pointless.
if the goal was to foster a function democracy in iraq, you could argue it either way, but at this point i think a "loss" is more convincing than a "win". there's a weak democracy there, but it's not clear if it will last without the u.s. to prop it up. and it's not clear whether it is really functioning, as the country's leadership is paralyzed and unable to form a government. at best it's too early to tell. at worst, it's a loss.
if the goal was to spread democracy throughout the rest of the middle east, the u.s. lost. if anything, iraq is a cautionary tale for the countries in the region. no one is rushing to make themselves "the next iraq."
see? isn't that better than calling up a bunch of people the reporter thinks are experts and asking them to pontificate?
