I heard John McCain say that, if he were elected, we would win in Iraq. I heard Sarah Palin say that it didn’t make sense to withdraw from Iraq when we were “almost winning.” So I asked myself: What would it look like for us to win in Iraq? What is an operational definition of winning in Iraq?

I asked that question of a McCain supporter. “There would be an Iraqi government that could maintain security in Iraq and begin developing the country,” he said. “But that wouldn’t be a win,” I replied. “It was stable and secure and economically viable before we invaded. They had electricity 24/7. People were working. There wasn’t much violence. How is that a win?”

...

If I asked John McCain that question, I think he would say something like the following: “There would be an Iraqi government that could maintain stability. It would be a democratically elected government. It would be an ally of the United States and would allow us to maintain and operate military bases in Iraq and use Iraq as a base of strategic military operations in the Middle East. It would allow our oil companies to operate freely in Iraq.”

That is a pipedream. That won’t happen in 100 years, if then. And it doesn’t matter how much money we pour into Iraq or how many lives we lose, Iraq will not be a close, dependable ally of the United States in the foreseeable future. Iraq will not allow us to use it as a base of strategic military operations in the Middle East. And Iraq won’t be a democracy on the model of the United States for a very long time.

In the white paper they wrote on military strategy for the Project for a New American Century, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz laid out a blueprint for the invasion of Iraq. We would invade Iraq, depose Saddam Hussein and install a puppet government that would allow us to use it as a base of military operations in the Middle East. They used 9/11 as a pretext for doing that. That made sense as a piece of military strategy, as a way of protecting our interests in the Middle East, as a bulwark against the aggression of revolutionary Islam.

But it didn’t work. It was a failure. That became evident as soon as we saw Iraqis mounting an effective campaign to kill Americans and their fellow citizens who were allied with Americans; American soldiers killing Iraqi policemen; Iraqi Army units kidnapping Iraqi oil ministers. And it is now clear that the democratically elected leaders of Iraq will not stand for the United States maintaining a long-term presence in Iraq.

So what should a country do when it has attempted a military strategy that didn’t work? I think it should admit that it made a mistake and take appropriate action. In Iraq, that means withdrawing in a responsible way that includes fixing what was broken and leaving with as much honor as possible.

That is what Barack Obama says he will do. When he does it, it is likely that things will deteriorate in Iraq. There may be all-out civil war. Iran will probably make some inroads and improve its strategic position in the Middle East. Whatever happens probably won’t benefit the United States.

But that is what will happen whenever we withdraw. It is what will happen if we withdraw in 2009 or in 2013. The only difference is that we’ll be spending $10 billion a month and thousands of American lives for nothing. The idea that the Surge was successful was a piece of political spin in the extreme. Yes, there is less violence and insecurity in Iraq than there was in 2007. But is there less violence and insecurity than there was in 2002, before we invaded? No way. The country is in much worse shape than it was before we invaded. And please don’t tell me that it was a worthwhile thing to do because we got rid of a ruthless dictator. There are many, many ruthless dictators in the world. If we make it our business to rid the world of them, we’re in for a world of hurt, not to mention violating our own principles of freedom and self-determination. Let’s face it. The invasion of Iraq was a horrible mistake. It’s time we admitted it and corrected it.

When Barack Obama makes good on his pledge to withdraw from Iraq and use our military resources to go after Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, there will be a chorus of outcry about surrender, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, giving up, showing weakness, encouraging our enemies, etc. I would ask those critics to ask themselves: What would a victory in Iraq have looked like? Was that really a victory? Was the kind of victory envisioned by the Bush Administration ever feasible?