[messierhunter]

When an army pulls out of a country because it is losing (and we’re certainly not “losing” Iraq), it isn’t surrendering. Hitler didn’t surrender when he couldn’t take Stalingrad, but he did began to pull back because he couldn’t sustain the losses and the Russians began applying too much pressure.

I emphatically disagree with this entire statement. If you quit because you're losing you've surrendered. If you quit because your enemy is dead, you've already won before you "quit." Hitler effectively surrendered to the soviets. Stalingrad was the beginning of the end for him.

[djsherin]

True, Hitler was finished, but surrendering would have meant he lost right there. He surrendered a bunch of troops that had been cut off, but he did not surrender. You can still “quit” while your enemy is alive and claim victory. For instance if Iran pissed us off enough and we bombed their airfields, military bases, and nuclear facilities, and then “quit” right there without finishing off the military or their leader, and then left, we would claim victory. At this point I don’t believe we’re fighting an army organized or strong enough to claim victory themselves. That said I think we should stay for around until the Iraqis can completely secure their own country and I understand where you’re coming from.