Culmination Point

[Rank amateur]

Even basic stability, to a large extent, depends on others

True. Which is why things like Nato, the UN etc are important. If you bring them in from the beginning, and things fail, it's not a US defeat, it's a bureaucratic screw up. If the objective had been, remove Saddam, then leave, we'd have won already.

I saw general Scales as pondering the possibilities and raising the questions of how culmination points come into being, how rivals see their selves, what does it mean in the broader perspective, what does that mean to policy, etc.

I'd say it's the point where it's inevitable that your strategy will defeat the opponent's strategy. If you assume that our strategy in Nam was to kill all the Communists and the Communist strategy was to convince us that they'd never stop fighting, Tet proved to a lot of people that our strategy wouldn't work and their's would. Inevitable, however, is subjective and the enemy can change strategies.

In Iraq, I'd say we're approaching the point where it becomes obvious that population control will work and that national reconciliation won't. But I'd say the first is still premature and since not many people agree with me, maybe the second is too. Still, I think we're close enough on the second point that somebody should start thinking about Plan B. (Sounds like Cavguy is perfect for the job.)