While I think repeating oneself can get annoying, there are certain points I don't mind belaboring in my posts here. One of them has been the Republicans' indifference to those in need as evidenced by their unconscionable budget cuts. Another is the distinct contrast in visions of the country being offered by the two parties. Let me add a third to the list. The supporters of the current policy in Iraq must define what it means to "win" that war.

This morning, Dick Cheney gave a speech reiterating a number of the same talking points advocating a 'stay the course' policy in Iraq. It was pretty much the same old, same old, but it was notable for the fact that Cheney specifically called Congressman John Murtha "a good man, a Marine, a patriot." Undoubtedly, the administration is in Mean Jean damage control mode.

One thing Cheney did not do was tell us anything new about the administration's goals for Iraq. There was a lot of talk about the terrorists winning should we leave, but completely absent was any talk about us winning should we stay.

Cheney again said that "withdrawal would be a victory for terrorists" and an "invitation to further violence."

"It is a dangerous illusion that another retreat by the civilized world would satisfy the appetite of terrorists .. We will not retreat in the face of adversity."
. . .
"The enemy hears a big debate in the United States, and they have to wonder: 'Maybe all we have to do is wait and we'll win. We can't win militarily.' They know that. The battle is here in the United States," Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday."

There's a lot of talk about "victory" and "winning" in there, from both Cheney and Rumsfeld. But once again, neither of them are talking about our side. There is absolutely no indication as to how the administration would define an American win.

The closest thing to a goal I've heard the administration express is that we will leave Iraq when the Iraqis are ready to 'stand up' militarily. But as respected figures like Rep. Murtha have pointed out, our presence enables the Iraqis to specifically not stand up militarily. And our presence undoubtedly hurts their recruitment as a number of otherwise patriotic Iraqis don't want to be seen as tools of the American occupiers. We're complicating the situation for the Iraqis as much if not more than we're actually helping at this point.

Even so, the fundamental problem with the administration's handling of Iraq is that we don't have a clear endpoint in mind. The administration is completely focused on 'not losing' instead of 'winning.' It's about stopping the bleeding instead of making actual gains. The President has said that "we will never accept anything less than complete victory." But if victory remains undefined, how will he know whether or not to accept it?