"It's only a matter of how much humiliation..."

I remember a couple of years ago I saw or read someone experienced in foreign policy say, in essence, that the US had already "lost" Iraq and that the only question left was how much humiliation the US would reap by leaving then or later.

I don't know if the US has "lost", failing to achieve its goal in Iraq. I don't know what the US goal is because the Administration does not have a clearly defined goal, at least one that lasts for more than a few weeks. And I haven't heard any that appear to be achievable at this point. The Administration has put us in a situation where there are no good alternatives.

I was not a proponent of invading Iraq. When the invasion was inevitable, it was my fervant hope that the US forces would win the shooting war as quickly as possible and with the fewest possible casualties. This is one facet of the effort that was successful. However, due to the stubborness of Rumsfeld and his adherence to policies which were at odds with those who had knowledge and experience with invasion and occupancy, the Iraq effort was lost within the first thirty days following Saddam's ouster. The failure to provide enough military strength at the beginning to secure the country, its people, and its infrastructure was critical. The opportunity for success was destroyed by the chaos that began with the looting of the national museum and continues today with the daily car bombs. Like a precious vase shattered, it cannot be glued back together.

The Washington Post today reports that "The US Lowers Sights on What Can Be Achieved in Iraq." Here's the money quote:

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." [emphasis added]

Frank Rick in today's New York Times says, "Someone Tell the President the War is Over." I recommend reading this. Rich writes:

"Nothing that happens on the ground in Iraq can turn around the fate of this war in America: not a shotgun constitution rushed to meet an arbitrary deadline, not another Iraqi election, not higher terrorist body counts, not another battle for Falluja (where insurgents may again regroup, The Los Angeles Times reported last week). A citizenry that was asked to accept tax cuts, not sacrifice, at the war's inception is hardly in the mood to start sacrificing now. There will be neither the volunteers nor the money required to field the wholesale additional American troops that might bolster the security situation in Iraq."

Someone please tell me what realistically possible outcome in Iraq will have been worth the sacrifice of life, limbs, treasure, and reputation that the US has lost since April of 2003.