Got some thoughtful comments from a friend of many years, a devout moderate, whose primary question is what is there to win?  I give his opinions plenty of weight, not only because he is smart but his having spent a substantial number of years in the Mideast makes his perpspective uniquley informed.  He makes many good points but my respnse is one that I am sure he has already heard: a stable democracy able to defend and sustain itself.  Easy to say.  Hard to accomplish.  Harder still with so many so-called leaders waving a white flag.  

My question, and challenge to him is, what is there to lose?  Other than the likeliehood of an aftermath from a precipitous pullout in Iraq that will make the mess we left in Viet Nam and Cambodia look like a day at the beach, not much.  That, to me, makes victory imperitive.  I am not the win for winning's sake sort.  I think we need to win because the consequences of losing would be much worse than any spoils of victory could ever justify.          

Though it was not one of his points our world standing is also in play here. Not that it ever ranked all that high on my priority list but if you think it sucks now how do suppose it might be after our abandonment results in another killing field?   

I also, ever so gently, take him to task for the "lied us into war" piffle... but didn't bother to point out using such tired talking points puts his moderate credentials at risk.  Love ya Vic...