I will take your word for that, but neither does victory. Ever since the end of WW II, we have not won the peace. The US goes from one hotspot to the next, fighting and winning the battles, but losing the peace. Maybe that is because instead of winning friends with tactics, we need to instill fear and respect by showing that we control life and death of all they love. It is what we did to great effect in WWI WWII, and Korea, until Truman pulled Macarthurs choke chain. We negotiated peace in Korea, it is still messed up, did the same in Vietnam and Iraq the first time, and got more wars from both. Using similar tactics of winning over the population, and Iraqization of the military, sounds and looks eerily similar to a war we walked away from in the 70's.
"The US goes from one hotspot to the next, fighting and winning the battles, but losing the peace"
Well, last time I checked, that war with the USSR was going pretty well...... What does that mean, anyway - "losing the peace"? I will opine that it means nothing; that it is a slogan promoted by nay-sayers.
You don't have to believe this, and I doubt that you will, but I certainly believe it to be true. Once again, with feeling: Our fight in Iraq is NOT with the Iraqi people. Our fight was with the baathist regime; now it is with the remnants of that regime, and a relatively small number of untrained, under-equipped, but highly motivated jihadists. You don't gain from broadening the fight by destroying the property and lives of innocents, who you are trying to convince that you are the good guys.
Our soldiers and marines certainly don't have any desire to die doing their jobs. But they recognize, with eyes wide open, that sometimes it happens. Most are prepared for that. That's why they are heroes. Adapting the philosophy that we must protect them at any cost is a defeatist; after all, that is what Cindy Sheehan wants to do, isn't it? We must certainly not waste their lives, but if we are not willing to risk them to do the right thing, we SHOULD go home....