One of the ways in which a thing can be proved to be a mistake is if it were shown to be predicated on the impossible. If the US had been defeated in Iraq, whatever the justification, the infeasibility would have proved the error. Gallipoli, Dieppe, Operation Barbarossa, Market Garden were all mistakes because they failed. Failure is proof of a mistake.

It is a harder proposition to prove that a victory is a mistake. One might argue that it cost too much or prove to sow the seeds of future catastrophe. But today, in 2008 is truly hard to categorically declare the West’s first apparent victory against a modern terrorist foe to be a defeat. Not in Algeria nor in Lebanon did France or Israel succeed to the degree the US has in Iraq. It might be argued that the Russians are succeeding in Chechnya in their own inimitable and brutal way. But it is possible to make the minimalist claim that the US has achieved something very, very remarkable.

That achievement can either be thrown away or serve as the keystone to future progress. The way ahead doesn’t necessarily have to be mostly kinetic. But I doubt it will be completely diplomatic. My own worry about BHO and to a certain extent, John McCain is whether they can find the right continuing line. I think John McCain will try, whatever fortunes his effort might bring. I am less convinced that BHO will make a good faith effort, simply because he is too political an animal.

In truth, I think we are in a far more critical period today than we were at the end of 2007. Iraq can so easily be ruined by a mistake by either administration, even one that is doing its best.