An excellent article that states: “Carl von Clausewitz famously explained that war is simply a continuation of policy by other means.” And if we consider historical run-ups to past wars, the statement is accurate. But then the author muddies the water: “Distasteful as that might seem, it has the virtue of ruling out wars that have no defined political objective.” I hold the thesis that all wars have political objectives, thus raising the interrogative as to whether the objective for Iraq has been deliberately left undefined. Then the article would end with a statemment rather than a question:: "If you hand over control of all your oil, we'll declare victory and go home."

This article indentifies the major error of America’s Iraqi policy as failure to define ultimate political objectives for the occupation. Without well-understood goals, how can any strategy succeed? The authors remind readers that the Vietnam War failed despite American military superiority. The war was lost because Vietnamese people shared the clearly understood political objective of national independence. In Iraq, the end objective of American forces is unknown, or at least unclear. Dujarric and Zelleke note John McCain’s recent satisfaction with Iraqi stability but the authors say that stability matters only if its terms are consistent with the US national interest; stability for its own sake is meaningless.

Dujarric and Zelleke are qualified academicians, but this analysis is slanted toward a popular audience. I suppose that largely excuses its lack of solid sources. It's hard to criticise a piece I agree with so strongly, but this one raises the question that needs to be asked: "McCain may be right in repeating his hope that the US will win the Iraq war by 2013. The question we should be asking him is this: Win what?"

One of the first things I noticed about this article was that the authors assume that what we get from McCain is actually "straight talk" (and commends him for it). As I read I found it interesting that a publication that I always thought of as conservative was actually allowing someone to ask questions about possible outcomes in Iraq and if they would be worth the cost.

Bringing up the important issues that are not apparent on the surface - that is what good journalism means to me. It is all very well for John McCain to say American troops will remain in Iraq but Robert Dujarric asks what kind of a victory is America seeking in Iraq and is it really worth it?

The Bush administration does not want to admit that "protecting" Israel, by obtaining permanent military bases in Iraq, was and is a large part of the agenda for the invasion and occupation of Iraq. This article helps to focus attention on the fundamental absurdity of American strategy, and it also suggest clearly enough that John McCain was a proponent of an illusory "victory" in Vietnam and he is up to the same foolish "strategy" with the Iraq fiasco.

Unstated hidden agendas are always a recipe for bad journalism. The hidden premises of this article are that Iraqis are genetically incapable of evolving beyond a barbaric existence and that any outcome short of a return to the Garden of Eden is not worth our effort. A surrender now or a surrender later are the only possibilities the author allows. Furthermore, surrender is the only avenue the author allows to avoid “further damage to US global standing, and continued deferral of attention to other pressing challenges”. The logic of this position is suspect.

Poses a problem with no hints towards a solution

This opinion piece has minimal journalistic merit. The authors are so intent on attacking John McCain that they ignore everything that is going in in Iraq and the Middle East. Even the Associated Press concedes that the allies are achieving their objective of a free and democratic Iraq! They only suggest scenarios that assume that the Arabs can never live in peace. This demonstrates real hatred of Islam, and colors their views of the situation.

This is an important piece because it gets behind the "news", clears away the fog, and asks the hard questions that all Americans of whatever political stripe should be asking. Why are we there? What are our objectives? What is winning and how will we know when we get there. And, is it all worth it. It is the American media's shame that these questions are not constantly being asked and answers demanded. It posits realistic future scenarios based on Iraq's history and recent experience. It is not a partisan polemic but a rational analysis.