Some wanted to bug out and avert our eyes from the sectarian slaughter that would have followed. Some wanted to install a despot who would control Iraq yet be less thuggish than Saddam. Others wanted to draw new lines on the map and split Iraq into three separate countries.
The one thing they had in common was the conviction that winning was either bad or impossible.
So this is fun to read:
However unlikely it may seem today, a relatively stable Iraq would have all the cards necessary to emerge as a major player in the Persian Gulf, where Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing for leadership.
And as a pro-American democracy, the impact may be more than just a stable Iraq will provide. Given that until recently not many figured just a stable Iraq would emerge, the impact of a stable democratic Iraq should be contemplated as well.
And we get to hunt down al Qaeda terrorists who spend most of their time avoiding defeat rather than attacking us in a sanctuary:
U.S.-led forces said they shot dead a leader of al Qaeda in Iraq on Friday who was the mastermind behind a series of deadly recent bombings in Baghdad.
Plan A--victory--was always the best way to go in Iraq. Thank goodness we didn't take the counsel of the defeatists last summer when they tried their best to legislate defeat.
