It's a good question. I don't think "win" or "lose" are appropriate terms though. If the establishment of a western-style democracy (with the oil taps turned to "open") was the goal then we never would have won. The misreading of the culture, the religious and ethnic divisions, the politics, and the resistance to an occupying force are classic. We did it before in Vietnam. Oh sure, we can bomb from 30,000 feet- we just can't occupy.

We can't really "lose" in the sense that we'll be defeated and subjugated. We will lose the war of attrition and have to pull out, now or in 2010- it doesn't matter. Our national will, our armed forces, and our financial resources are being drained faster than an Everglades swamp. Again, like Vietnam, the country is polarized, though not like it would be if we had a draft.

It seems inconceivable that we will remain in Iraq until 2010 at this rate. It also seems inconceivable that we will broker a political solution that will allow for a graceful exit. "Peace with honor" they used to call it.

And unlike Vietnam, which did not experience a post-occupation bloodbath after the US left, all hell is going to break loose in Iraq after we're gone.