Defining victory

I can't tell you what "victory" in Iraq is supposed to look like.\nI opposed this war when it was only a bad idea and still oppose it now that it has become a nightmarish reality. But I, like virtually all Americans, don't want to see the United States lose. However, what does that mean if I can't even define what it means for us to win?\nWe were told that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that it would use against America. Despite whether this was false, the country has been scoured for WMDs, and none have been found. We were told that Saddam was dangerous and posed a direct threat to America. Despite whether this was false, Saddam is now in custody and merely a sad display of the illusion of grandeur. \nWe were told that our noble mission in Iraq was to sow the seeds of democracy in a land where it was previously nonexistent. Despite whether this was our true mission, the Iraqis have voted in two generally free and fair elections and have established their constitution.\nVictory wasn't when we toppled the Saddam statue in Baghdad. It wasn't when President Bush got dressed up in fighter gear for his photo-op aboard an aircraft carrier under the "Mission Accomplished" banner. It wasn't when we killed Saddam's two sons. It wasn't when we finally captured Saddam. It wasn't after either of Iraq's two elections, nor was it when the Iraqis ratified their constitution. As you might have noticed, our troops are still in Iraq. Victory must demand something else, but what is it?\nRecently, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., called for an immediate withdrawal of troops. He declared: "Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty." Despite the bipartisan respect conferred to Murtha, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, delivered what passes as rhetoric on Capitol Hill when she claimed to speak for a Marine colonel: "He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: That cowards cut and run; Marines never do." So apparently most Republicans disagree with Murtha.\nIt's hardly a secret that the supporters of this war oppose an immediate withdrawal of troops, but what do they actually support? I've read what seems like countless explanations that we need to "stay the course," but such empty rhetoric rings hollow. Stay the course until ... what? \nThe public approval ratings of this war are as low as they've ever been. This seems inevitable to me. How can we continue to support a war if we don't even know what victory looks like? I'm not sure if I agree with Murtha, but I am glad that he gave his speech. If nothing else, it demands that the supporters of this war make their case and define, unequivocally, what it means to triumph in Iraq, and what remains to be done before we reach that point.\nAfter all, if we stay the course until "victory" is achieved, yet victory is never defined, then the troops can never come home.