If we don't have a clearly defined definition of what a military victory is (what equates to setting conditions for political objectives), in our various conflicts (under the umbrella of GWOT), then we open the door to letting the enemy define victory and to deny it. We take the initiative when we say we say what we mean and do it. We give the initiative to the enemy when we have ambiguous, lofty, and city on the hill endstates.

USMC8652 we discussed the Yugoslav parallel in previous posts, and unfortunately what is happening in Iraq was predicted by several regional experts in 2002. Tito and Saddam were effective leaders for these types of States. You either replace them with a similar type leader, leave them in place, or step back and let history take its course.

We had two clearly achievable military objectives in Iraq:

1. Remove Saddam from power.
2. Exploit suspected WMD sites.

In my opinion both were justified, though I don't agree with the timing. Now a real strategy would have provided a realistic exit plan after those achievable objectives were completed.