Many of us realized from the beginning and a majority now realize that the the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the "war on terror" or national security. Anyone who pays attention now realizes that we can't win and in fact the Bush/Cheney cabal can't even define what wining is. Over at The Left Coaster paradox asks the question I've been asking myself, Why is Losing Iraq Incomprehensible?. Go read the entire post but I'll give you a snip.
What will losing precisely mean? Above all nothing this great country cannot survive and emerge eventually thriving once again—just like we’ve all recovered from losses, to one extent or another. Also that every single possible action or tactic in the loss of Iraq is immensely favorable compared to doing nothing or maintaining the status quo.Any downside of "staying the course" is ultimately worse than any downside from losing. That of course does not apply to the legacy of George W. Bush and in fact the Bush family. That is why you see James Baker III trying to find a way out that looks less like a loss.
Finally, always know there were huge risks of unimaginable scale when Bush started this war, which our whoring corporate media gushed endlessly was so bold, so daring in their twittering wargasm of potentially higher ratings. Well, that was a massively stupid, immature thing to do, and it’s time to pay.
Geopolitically losing means a huge loss of prestige and possible power of influence. Iran will be greatly empowered, if the civil war actually produces a stable political body, or Iran may covertly or overtly try to influence the civil war for a greater Shia sphere of influence. Turkey may enter the war in the north to prevent the formulation of Kurdistan.