There is a clear parallel with the war in Iraq. After the overthrow of Saddam and the Ba'athist regime, we were involved in a stalemate for over three years. Americans are not fond of no-win wars in either the 19th or the 21st Century, and took it out on the Republican congress and in the governorships and the state legislatures in November 2006. After General Petraeus took command of operations and the surge began, the situation in the field turned around and the Democrat-run Congress has largely not challenged the Administration policy, despite its promises to do so in January 2007.
Sherman's taking of Atlanta in 1864 probably clinched Lincoln's victory in his bid for re-election. A clear victory in Iraq during the next two months will do likewise for McCain.
Not close. We aren't in a stalemate. We are in the same situation as our bombers over Europe in WW II. We are forcing the enemy to come to us in a way we can NEVER go to him, and we are killing them in bushels. By my calculations, just between 2001 and 2006, we have killed 40,000, wounded 160,000, captured 25,000 and caused to permanently desert 10,000. By 2006, we were by official confirmation killing 1,400 a MONTH.
This is only possible by making them come to us. We can't invade Indonesia, Morroco, Yemen, Egypt, and every other Muslim spot on the planet. The fact that we are succeding beyond our wildest dreams is clearly indicated by the fact that the last 3 major bombings have been by WOMEN. This an outrage for the jihadists, and it reminds me of Patton's line in the movie, "I knew we are winning when I saw the carts."
This not only will be over by the time McCain comes in, but he will not even have to deal with a WoT of the kind Bush had to fight, and probably won't appreciate Bush's contribution, either.