"Winning"

Perhaps the state of Iraq and Afghanistan can best be judged by the sliding top end definition of "winning." The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace:

Asked by one interviewer whether the United States is winning the war in Iraq, Pace replied: "You have to define 'winning.' I don't mean to be glib about that.

"Winning, to me, is simply having each of the nations that we're trying to help have a secure environment inside of which their government and people can function," he said, in remarks that seemed to depart from the administration's more ambitious stated goal of building a democracy in Iraq.

"You are not going to do away with terrorism," Pace continued. "But you can provide governments in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere with enough security capacity to keep the acts below a level at which their governments can function," he said.

When this war was being sold, the definition of "winning" was a democratic Iraq that would serve as a "beacon of hope" leading to a reverse domino "flowering of democracy" throughout the region, changing the face of the middle east forever.

Now, the top end goal is to leave Iraq and Afghanistan with few enough terror attacks to stay below some minimum threshold, "below a level at which their governments can function."

We can argue about "metrics" or any other definitional game you want to try and play, but the drastic collapse of the top end best hopes for Iraq says more about that country's state than anything else.

Also: Just a mention that the US in engaging in very heavy fighting in Ramadi right now. There are no reporters there.