Austin Bay says that we're winning in Iraq (and really have been all along, despite the media's body-count-driven narrative).

"The Iraqi people are earning their victory and their liberty. The price for both is inevitably paid in blood, sweat and toil. At this point in history, they need American patience."

I'm not sure this is worded right. It is far from clear to me that the Iraqis are learning the rudiments of democratic co-existence. What can we use as benchmarks that the Sunni, Shia and Kurd actually WANT to live together in one Iraq? One would have to point to something more substantive than reduced violence when our troops are on the streets of Baghdad.

We have an improving situation on the ground that is derived not from their blood sweat and tears but mainly ours. There certainly is their blood sweat and tears, but most of that is not derived from efforts to live together but to live apart.

As to American patience, the last poll I saw says 58% of Americans want our troops out by 2008. If this is the wish of the American people, and they get their wish, one is pressed to see how the internal Iraqi mind-set can change in 2 years. So either the argument has been made very poorly by this administration or the American people are smart enough that they can see a lost cause for what it is.

What can we use as benchmarks that the Sunni, Shia and Kurd actually WANT to live together in one Iraq?

The oil deal that seems to be being hammered out would be one sign.

The oil deal certainly appears to be a good thing. I'm not sure of all the details on this (there's a lot of noise around about how 80% or so of the revenue is going to oil companies etc.), but the more incentives we have that force the Iraqis to want an Iraq and the fewer of these that involve a rifle to the head, the better. It is a very big problem though...how do you convince a people to ignore centuries of prejudice and sectarianism and live together in harmony.

Look at Sri-Lanka..30 years of civil war and attitudes have hardly changed at all. The war rages on. This in a country with 95% literacy, a secular constitution and all the vestigial characteristics of a democracy. Ethnic/sectarian hatred is often built up over centuries. Not an easy thing to snuff out.

It seems to require a full generation educated to think differently, and charismatic home grown leadership that shares this viewpoint.

Offside, you're just exhibiting generic cynicism. You could have said exactly the same thing about the infant United States in 1786 or the French Republic in 1794, as well as about Sri Lanka or Cyprus. In some cases you'd have turned out right, and in others you'd have turned out wrong. What you've said boils down to:

(1) Birthing a stable democracy is tough.

(2) It doesn't always work.

Well golly thanks for the big insight.

Now if you had some general predictive theory that would let us tell whether what's going on in Iraq are birth pains or death throes, that'd be just great. But then if you did, you'd be wildly famous and wealthy already, since no one ever anywhere throughout history has been able to make that call correctly.

Generic skepticism about improbable ventures (such as turning a corrupt murderous kleptocracy into the only peaceable functioning democracy the Arab Middle East has ever known) is a useful base attitude. Prevents foolish false hopes, gross underestimates of the costs, et cetera.

But as a total policy -- if you've got nothing else more constructive to add to the random carpings and warnings -- it's infantile. Persons who contribute nothing to the future but criticism of the efforts of others to improve things are useless parasites.

how many times has austin said we were winning in Iraq?

Part of a total policy that Carl wants is to see the differences between Iraq and the examples he's mentioned where successful conclusions have occurred. Our difficulties in understanding what we are actually trying to do, devoid of grand statements like " birthing the only democracy in the middle east" is part of the problem. You can't solve a problem where you have misread the question. I think the Sri-Lanka parallel to Iraq is quite striking, going from fundamental religious and ethnic differences, through the colonial experience, an intermingled population, terrorism, neighbor country involvement etc. The other examples Carl provides share very little in common with the Iraq problem.

I have to admire Carl's talent at condensing all I've said into two rather ridiculous sentences. He does have a way with words.

Could someone please fill me in on the current definition of "win"? It would be good if we were all discussing the same subject.

I have to admire Carl's talent at condensing all I've said into two rather ridiculous sentences.

Pish! It didn't take any talent. Anyone could have done it, really.

how many times has austin said we were winning in Iraq?

Probably the number of times he's stated an opinion on the subject.

Why? Are you saying he would be more credible if he waffled more? Changed his mind about how things were going and what should be done a dozen times a year, sometimes two or three times a day ( like much of the Democratic leadership), or even once or twice within the same sentence, like Senator Kerry?

Carl

So you say Austin has been wrong for 4 years?

Excellent.

But today we should listen to him?