Speaking of deals…

Noting that Tom Friedman's likely not the only one to hold the preposterous notion that...

"Liberals don't want to talk about Iraq because, with a few exceptions, they thought the war was wrong and deep down don't want the Bush team to succeed."

…I'd argue that liberals can hardly stop talking about Iraq. We just can't say much that Tom Friedman and the "we must win!" faction want to hear. Part of that's the fault of the relentlessly bad news generated by the occupation, of course, but part of it's simply a matter of confusion about what 'success' for the Bush team is.

It's really one of the first questions you have to ask when going to battle, isn't it? What does victory look like? That's been a moving target, redefined every time one or another rationale for war has crumbled under public scrutiny.

OK, then, let's just say that Saddam Hussein was undoubtedly an evil ruler, and that while the price in blood and treasure has been high, removing him was a sufficient goal, well accomplished?

OK, I'll buy that. But I need a little something back. How 'bout an agreement to start standing down the National Guard immediately, followed by all components of the Reserves, culminating in reposting all of our active duty military to stations outside Iraq?

In other words, George, if you say you've won and bring the troops home now, I'll give you credit for for catching the bad guy and I'll hardly even gloat about your abject failure to impose democracy by distinctly non-democratic means.

Deal?