Robert Dreyfuss has a good article in Tom's Dispatch today about the future options in Iraq. Much of the article is likely review for most who have followed the Iraq developments closely. But Dreyfuss does a nice job summarizing the situation and likely outcomes. As you might imagine, they're not good.

What I found interesting was the framing of his article around the words "failure" and "defeat". It got me thinking. Haven't we already failed in Iraq? The only goal that's been accomplished was to remove Saddam Hussein. Conservatives would argue that this is a big achievement. But in hindsight, isn't it a pretty pitiful change? The other goals of "spreading democracy", stabilizing the Middle East, stemming terrorism, and providing stable access to oil have all been abject failures.

Defeat, on the other hand, is not yet a reality. I don't think there's any question that it's in the cards, it's just a matter of time. There are many more of "them" there than "us" and they don't like "us". There will ultimately be the "helicopter moment" when the remaining American's a loyalists, that is the loyalist that can fit on the helicopter, will evacuate the green zone to an awaiting aircraft carrier.

Of course by then, conservatives will have trashed Bush/Rumsfeld as having not fully committed to victory, and they will blame the media (despite goverment control of the stories from Iraq) for it's pessimistic portray of the war for the defeat. Some young conservatives will swallow this kool-aid all the way, planting the seeds for yet another war in a generation to "spread democracy" or to prevent the "domino effect" of the demon de jour.

And so it goes ......