Well done Mr. Hitchens, you have made an articulate and compelling argument.

It is amazing that there are apparently serious people who insist that we must withdraw from Iraq - and withdraw right now. If it was just anti-war nuts like Cindy Sheehan it would be easy to dismiss them, but these are Senators, Congressmen, and honestly, a rather large fraction of the American population. These are, by and large, thoughtful people.

Well, they need to think a little more because a withdrawal, no matter how we choose to portray it, will be a defeat. And it will be seen as a defeat by everyone.

The next and obvious question will be: who defeated us? And that's where it gets ugly. We won't be able to say we were defeated by a well organized modern army. We won't be able to say we were defeated by a grass-roots movement that had vast popular support. We won't even be able to claim that we were beaten by a proxy group supported by a significant rival. Instead we will have to admit that we, as one of the main pillars of Western civilization and democracy with the largest and most formidable military in the world, were defeated by a loosely organized group of murderous thugs. We will have been beaten by scum.

The consequences of this will have very long term effects and will be truly disastrous.

We can win, but what's more, we have to win.

It's pretty clear that we "defeated" ourselves. Whether that's better or worse than being "defeated" by AQM is open to argument.

How will we win? Al-qaida is one of many problems in Iraq. (Can you name the others?) Whats your solution?

Low voltage: You really aren't the brightest bulb on the tree. We were defeated in Iraq when we rolled into Baghdad, set by and watched the looting of the country and its historical treasures. We were defeated when Dubya appointed Bremmer and his Young Republican incompetent corps to run the occupation. We were defeated when we couldn't get power and water to replace an infrastructure we destroyed. And we were defeated when over 75 percent of the Iraqi population (those left in country) say it is all right to wreak violence on American troops. Its imbeciles like you that have allowed this to happen.

The whole notion of defeat vs. victory is frankly irrelevant to the present state of Iraq. We have already lost, and this is something that the last vestiges of delusional propagandists for this President and his foreign policy, Mr. Hitchens included, are just going to have to learn to live with. How do these people even conceive of victory in Iraq? There are so many factions fighting one another, so many grievances against so many different parties exploding in violence, that I don't think anyone has any idea what we are even supposed to be doing there. Even if every member of al-Qaeda in Iraq were wiped out tomorrow, Iraq would still be in chaos. I agree with Mr. Hitchens that many members of this organization are just as reprehensible as their forbears in Afghanistan, but what is the significance of this statement? If anything, Mr. Hitchens seems to make a case for his detractors when arguing that some groups in Iraq have lately turned against al-Qaeda. Why shouldn't they? They're a bunch of murderous thugs. It only makes sense that at some time or another they would become pariahs. I would argue that the only reason this did not happen sooner is because we are in Iraq in large numbers hastening recruitment to this organization in two ways: one simply by our presence as an occupying force in an Arab land, and two giving Iraqis who have in some way or another been harmed by this occupation a means to fight the U.S. Thereby some young folks who don't necessarily buy into the whole al-Qaeda notion of wiping out all Sunnis and Shiites who disagree with them, even their fellow countrymen, would nevertheless join up as a means to attack U.S. troops.

Our prestige in this country has already been irreparably tarnished as a result of the myriad mistakes we made shortly after the invasion, and chose not to address for several years. I don't doubt that the strategies we are employing now in this surge are more militarily effective than those employed in the past. I just think that its simply too late for any military action we might take whatsover to have an effect on the stability of Iraq as an independent state. Yet there are those so stubborn and arrogant that they cannot accept that even we must take responsibility for our actions and mistakes. We hear constantly "we must win, we must win" and it seems as if no one has considered the possibility that we cannot win. Well I'm hear to tell you there are mistakes so great that once made they cannot be remedied, and follies so grand that once undertaken they cannot be righted. This unfortunate war is but an illustration of this tragic truth.

There is no question that we have made many mistakes in this campaign, some of them small, some of them major. Historically, I don't think there has been a single war we have participated in, either won or lost, which has not had its share of grievous errors.

For normalcy to be restored in Iraq AQM must first be eliminated and this is a doable task. They are not a popular movement, nor for that matter are they an Iraqi movement. In the periods that they have controlled regions of the country they have not restored normalcy. To the contrary they have wrought further destruction, and that is why they do not have popular support. For this reason they are eminently beatable.

If we withdraw and let them win there will be two very dangerous consequences the lesser being a resurgence of terrorist attacks across the world and particularly on the US. Remember, the September 11 attacks were not provoked, and there is no reason to believe that AQM left to its devices in Iraq will not be eager to to repeat this. The civilized world can not live with this cancer and ultimately we will have to return and remove it. I doubt it will be easier the second time around.

However the graver danger is that in our weakened state we will be unable to respond to a nefarious and resurgent Russia. Much of what was gained by the demise of the USSR would be lost. Georgia would go first, then the Ukraine. Moving west perhaps the EU could defend its newest members on it own. Perhaps not. The cold war, in a new version, would very likely return.

So the stakes are high but the enemy can be beaten. America was not made by people who fear risk or who are satisfied in defeat. If we want to win we can.

uh. No. If we pull out\lose, AQ will have little to no relevance in the shiite-controlled state that would emerge. Defeating AQ in Iraq is a great idea. Lets do it. But unless there is political reconciliation between Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd nationalist groups and their militias, there ain't gonna be no peace in Iraq.

Low Voltage,

What a breath of fresh air to read the words of a real "realist" who understands the gravity of the situation in Iraq.

I am completely with you on this, until these three words: "We can win..."

No, I don't think we can. Or, at least we can not win until we radically change our strategy to include that very withdrawal which, as you very clearly and rightly stated, will be a defeat at the hands of the worst people in the world.

Another reality check for those who believe we can "just leave" Iraq and not have it be a massive blow to American credibility and a massive win for the Islamists, is that we will have to be there in one way or another for many years to come. We simply have far too many vital interests in the region not to be there. And I don't see any president actually completely withdrawing.

The problem is that as it stands we simply do not have the resources to be there in the way are currently there. We simply must admit that if we are going to do a WWII-style take-over of a country, we need a WWII sized military. As it is, we are breaking the military. We are so overextended militarily it is frightening.

We will have to at the very least take a step back, meaning, get our boys out of the job of doing foot patrols, and send many of them home. The rest we put perhaps in fortresses in the desert to act as a strike force, and use air and naval power from the Gulf to take out terrorists where we can find them, and keep the pressure on Iran as necessary.

Of course, this is not my bright idea. Many military experts are suggesting this very thing. But even this will be a step back, before we can step forward towards any sort of "win."

But, thanks for the adult take on this whole thing!

JW, I just think you're wrong on this.

The entire world will be cheering when the US is defeated in Iraq. Al Queda will make enormous hay out of this. This will be far more important to Islamist extremism throughout the world than 9/11 ever was.

On one hand, we can do ourselves a disfavor by lumping all enemies into one big monolithic Muslim Enemy and therefore not smartly allow them to work against each other.

But on the other hand, it misses the enormous point of what the Islamists represent throughout Islam. First let me state the obvious: no, not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Muslims are fanatics. Most are decent and just want to get on with their lives. But...drum roll please...most all Muslims at the very least can't help but sort of admire these crazy bastards.

Remember, the average Muslim finds Western and particularly US culture repulsive, vile, even evil and dangerous. They are frightened by it. They hate it. They don't want it to corrupt their own. The average, non-violent, decent, normal Muslim sees American children with their own porn pages, zero respect for any kind of authority, a race to the bottom in every social indicator, the fact that we celebrate Britney Spears and her not wearing panties as she steps out of a limo...

This is worse than Saddam to them. They would far more prefer a dictator than what they consider Western moral depravity. And then they realize that all of the Arab strong men are in fact corrupt and held up by the West, or else are corrupt and at odds with the West but basically toothless. And don't forget Arabs feel deeply wounded by history.

So all Muslims, let alone extremists, see a pack of Arabs and Muslims of all types, be it Al Queda, Sunni, Shiite, it doesn't really matter, and it is a boon to all extremists.

Gee bordhead, you're a real problem solver. You may want to offer your services up to the next president.

Low Voltage, your statement, "However the graver danger is that in our weakened state we will be unable to respond to a nefarious and resurgent Russia."

That, among many different and dangerous developments, is indeed why we need to get out of Iraq, which is the very thing right now most weakening us.

Let's say we wiped out AQ in Iraq. Terrific. But we still then have an enormously hostile Iraqi people fighting both our soliders and each other which we need to maintain an occupation and management for generations to come.

The ONLY way we could have a chance of winning there is to enact a massive draft and a massive increase of our military, up to Vietnam levels. Even if that was to happen it would take years to get to operational level required to control and keep control of Iraq.

I like your fighting spirit. I appreciate that you understand the stakes of our loss in Iraq. I just believe you don't see we have already lost.

As long as GW Bush and Dick Cheney sit in the White House there can be no chance to win. While the current Generals seem to know what is going on, most of those who really could have helped either retired or where fired. Take a poll. First find out how many generals have left service since GW. See how they feel about how the war was handled. Then pick the same number of serving generals equally and get their opinion. I bet you'll get a conclusion you won't like. The war was lost along time ago. When the will of the people was not adhered to it was kissed goodbye. They have changed a calm Iraq into an Iraq without electric, clean water, schools, housing etc. The quality of life in Iraq breeds anti American sentiment. So understand the war is already lost. The money spent is gone. The lives lost well, it's a tragedy. The planning was terrible. You had an man go to Iraq in the very beginning to build some infrastructure and he was a bumbler who misplaced, lost, gave away etc our tax dollars while here in the USA our infrastructure crumbled. So anyone willing to continue to fight I suggest go enlist. But please send the soldiers home who really don't want to be there. Want to know who they are? Just ask the families.

Unfortunately it is no longer a choice. Our leaders have given the enemy all the fuel it needs to to motivate the Iraqis. Our journey was a disaster. You will never be able to buy a peoples while they still have the ability to fight and maim us. The only true way to win a war is total devastation Such as the first 2 World Wars. The 3 other conflicts Korea, Vietnam and the second Iraq were all less than. Our side had to settle for whatever it could get. War cannot be fought this way. To subdue the enemy it has to be broken down to nothing. The two guys in the White House don't have the brains to fight a war. Iraq is the proof.

Winning and losing isn't the issue. You can't "win" a conflict like this one. There is no one to surrender. There is nothing to conquer. There is no specific person to kill.

You can't kill an idea with guns or bombs. The terrorists are impossible to control. You can't look inside someone's head and ferret every potential terrorist out. You kill one, and two more of their family members take their place.

The war in Iraq was lost before it ever began. When Bush decided it was more important to kill Saddam than confirm if he needed to be defanged and then to do it, we LOST.

By invading a sovereign nation that had never attacked us, using the fake basis of giving the UN the finger, we lost any ability to control the conflict or to keep it conventional. This was no longer about Saddam's actions.

When BushCorp. chose to pretend that Saddam was suddenly a revitalized Muslim fanatic (something he never was) and implicated in 9/11, we lost the conflict. When BushCorp. turned GWII into a war against Islam rather than just a conflict with a tyrant, we lost. And every decision to move further down that road has simply reinforced that idea.

And how exactly do we 'win' and how do you define our goal? We went there to find weapons of mass destruction- found none - did we win or loose? and why are we still there, now ? the majority of the Iraqi people do not want us there so why are we there to force our brand of democracy (or what this administration pretends is democrarcy) down their throats?

We all know this was a lunatic Neo-con scheme to set up a U.S. Empire in the Middle East that failed miserably and was doomed to failure from the start. The truth is we can't 'win" and we loose more and more each day we remain there.